Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boudreaux v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

September 27, 2019


         SECTION: “B” (1)


         Before the Court are defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC's (“Ocwen”) motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 25), plaintiffs Ledon Kendell Boudreaux, Michael Anthony Boudreaux, Shawn Joseph Boudreaux's response (Rec. Doc. 30), and defendant's reply (Rec. Doc. 34). For the reasons discussed below, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.


         This is a real property case concerning foreclosure. On June 25, 2002, Bernadette Coleman Boudreaux (“Boudreaux”) executed a promissory note in the principal amount of $45, 000 in favor of New Century Mortgage Corporation (“New Century”). See Rec. Doc. 25-1 at 2-3. The note was endorsed in blank and without recourse by New Century, and at times relevant to the instant suit, purportedly held by defendant Deutsche. See Rec. Doc. 25-2 at 2. Boudreaux also executed a mortgage encumbering certain immovable property (“the Property”) located in Marrero, Louisiana, as security for the loan. See Rec. Doc. 25-1 at 3. On July 22, 2012, Boudreaux passed away, leaving Ledon Boudreaux, Michael Boudreaux, and Shawn Boudreaux (“plaintiffs”) as the sole heirs of her estate. See Id.

         Boudreaux allegedly defaulted on the note and loan by failing to make the required payments. See Id. On September 30, 2013, defendant Deutsche filed a petition for executory process against the unopened succession of Boudreaux in state court to enforce the New Century mortgage. See id; see also Rec. Doc 30 at 2. On October 10, 2013, the state court executed an order of executory process, directing that a writ of seizure and sale be issued and commanding the Jefferson Parish Sheriff to seize and sell the Property. See Id. at 4. Plaintiffs did not seek an injunction or a suspensive appeal from the order. See Id. On August 27, 2014, a writ of seizure and sale was issued. See id.

         According to plaintiffs, they attempted to modify the loan twice, once in January 2016 and once in May 2017. See Rec. Doc. 30 at 2. Plaintiffs' January 2016 modification was rejected. See id. Plaintiffs' May 2017 modification was met with assurance from a representative of defendant Ocwen that the foreclosure of the Property would be postponed. See id. Plaintiffs responded to a document request by defendant Ocwen on June 4, 2015. See id.

         On June 14, 2017, defendant Duetsche purchased the Property from a sheriff's sale for $40, 000. See Rec. Doc. 25-1 at 4. On June 27, 2017, the deed conveying the Property to defendant Duetsche was recorded into the Jefferson Parish Conveyance Records. See Rec. Doc. 25-6 at 3-4.

         On June 5, 2018, plaintiffs filed their complaint against defendants, alleging that the foreclosure was illegal, fraudulent, and oppressive because defendant Duetsche lacked the authority to foreclose. See Rec. Doc. 1 at 7. Plaintiffs seek damages, civil penalties pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 1024.14(g), and “an order cancelling and expunging the void documents mentioned hereinabove[, ]” reasonable cost of suit, recompense of damages and arrears, and any other relief deemed proper. See Id. at 10-11.

         On November 20, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on various asserted grounds. See Rec. Doc. 25. On January 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a response in opposition, asserting that this Court does have subject-matter jurisdiction, but notably silent to other grounds for dismissal. See Rec. Doc. 30. On February 5, 2019, defendants filed a reply memorandum. See Rec. Doc. 34 at 1-2.


         Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction must be examined before the merits of a case. See Burciaga v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 871 F.3d 380, 384 (5th Cir. 2017).

         Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to move for dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction. The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. See Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). If subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist, authority to hear the case does not exist. See Wylie v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 856 F.Supp.2d 837, 843 (E.D. La. 2012).

         When deciding whether subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking, ”a court may evaluate (1) the complaint alone, (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.” See Buck Kreihs Co. v. Ace Fire Underwriters Ins. Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12442, at *7 (E.D. La. 2004). All uncontroverted allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. See id.

         Defendants argue that plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed as a matter of law, with prejudice, for several reasons. Principally, defendants argue that subject-matter ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.