United States District Court, D. Columbia.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Vesko Borislavov Ananiev, Plaintiff, Pro se, Santa Rosa, CA USA.
BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Vesko Ananiev, who is proceeding pro se, brings this lawsuit against ten unidentified " Doe" defendants and ten named defendants--the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department, as well as Sheriff Steven Freitas and Sheriff's Deputy Kathryn Straley, in both their personal and official capacities (collectively the " Law Enforcement Defendants" ); Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (" Wells Fargo" ), Aurora Loan Services LLC (" ALS" ), and Aurora Bank, FSB (" Aurora Bank" ) (the " Bank Defendants" ); and Rosenthal Withem & Zeff, Michael D. Zeff, Michael L. Withem, and Robert L. Rosenthal (the " Law Firm Defendants" )--in connection with the foreclosure of his California home. See generally First Amended Compl. (" FAC" ), ECF No. 9. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the title of his property and assorted damages on the grounds that actions against the property violated his constitutional, statutory, and common law rights, as well as a consent decree entered against multiple financial entities, including Wells Fargo, in an unrelated matter before this court. See id. ¶ ¶ 88-171. The plaintiff also alleges violations of the False Claims Act (" FCA" ), 31 U.S.C. § § 3729 et seq. , and purports to be a relator bringing a qui tam civil action on
behalf of the United States government. See id. ¶ ¶ 132-63.
For the reasons explained below, the Court dismisses this action, sua sponte, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, as well as under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
The facts surrounding the plaintiff's mortgage, foreclosure, and prior lawsuits are set forth in detail in this Court's previous decision involving this plaintiff. See Ananiev v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA ( Ananiev III ) No. 12-1804, 968 F.Supp.2d 123, at *4-6 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2013). The plaintiff has largely regurgitated the allegations made in his previous complaint filed with this Court, which was dismissed. See id. Nevertheless, a brief summary of those facts is helpful in explaining the context for the instant decision.
A. The Plaintiff's Mortgage & Prior Lawsuits
The string of events leading up to the instant suit began with the plaintiff obtaining a mortgage in 2004. After defaulting on that mortgage, the plaintiff was involved in at least three federal lawsuits pertaining to his property, with this action being the fourth. The plaintiff was also named as a defendant in a state court action in California. The following provides a brief overview of these events.
1. The Plaintiff's Mortgage
In June 2004, the plaintiff obtained a mortgage in the amount of $511,200 that was secured bye a deed of trust on real property at 1243 and 1247 Kodiak Court, Santa Rosa, California (the " California Property" ). See FAC, Ex. C (Certified Securitization Analysis) at 3, ECF No. 9-1. Through subsequent transactions that occurred without the involvement of the plaintiff, ownership of the mortgage was transferred to Wells Fargo, and ALS became the servicing agent. Id. at 4. Aurora Bank acquired title to the California Property in May 2012 at a trustee's sale following foreclosure proceedings and sought to evict the plaintiff. FAC, Ex. F (Aurora Bank Complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed on June 22, 2012, in Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma) at 1, ECF No. 9-1 (" Unlawful Detainer Compl." ).
2. The Plaintiff's Prior Lawsuits
On May 7, 2012, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against multiple defendants, including Aurora Bank, ALS, and the Law Firm Defendants, for the allegedly fraudulent servicing of his loan and fraudulent foreclosure on his property. Ananiev v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC ( Ananiev I ), No. C. 12-2275-SI, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2012). The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and granted the plaintiff limited leave to amend. Id. at *22. The plaintiff's effort to amend his complaint against those defendants was unavailing, and the court granted those defendants' renewed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Ananiev v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC ( Ananiev II ), No. C. 12-2275 SI, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012). The plaintiff took an appeal from the Order in Ananiev II, which remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Ananiev v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, No. 12-17108 (9th Cir. filed Sept. 19, 2012).
While the plaintiff's lawsuit that gave rise to Ananiev I and II was pending, defendant Aurora Bank, on June 22, 2012, filed an unlawful detainer action against the plaintiff in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma (" Superior Court" ), seeking possession of the California Property. See generally Unlawful Detainer Compl.; see also FAC, ¶ ¶ 8-11. Defendant Michael D. Zeff, an attorney with the defendant law firm of Rosenthal, Withem & Zeff, represented Aurora Bank in its unlawful detainer action. See Unlawful Detainer Compl. at 3. In that complaint, Aurora Bank claimed it had acquired title to the California Property at a trustee's sale and was entitled to possession of the property. See id. at 2. The Superior Court found in favor of Aurora Bank and issued a writ of possession. FAC ¶ 9; see Ananiev III, 968 F.Supp.2d 123, at *6.
The plaintiff then brought suit in this Court against eight named and ten unidentified " Doe" defendants allegedly involved in the foreclosure. Ananiev III, 968 F.Supp.2d 123, at *1-2. He claimed the defendants had violated his due process rights, intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him, and violated a consent judgment  entered against multiple financial entities, a claim the plaintiff reiterates in the instant case. Id. Upon motions to dismiss by seven of the named defendants, the Court dismissed the complaint in Ananiev III for improper venue and found that transfer in lieu of dismissal was not in the interest of justice. Id. at *2-3.
B. Plaintiff's Instant Complaint (Ananiev IV)
On March 14, 2013, the plaintiff filed the original complaint in the instant matter setting out factual allegations nearly identical to those in his prior suits. See Compl., ECF No. 1. After more than 120 days had passed without a proof of service filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), this Court issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 5. In response, the plaintiff filed a purported proof of service on the Law Enforcement Defendants on August 16, 2013. ECF No. 6. No defendant filed an answer, however, prompting the Court to issue a second order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 7. The plaintiff filed the FAC on December 23, 2013. See FAC.
In his eighty-five page FAC, accompanied by an additional ninety-eight pages of exhibits, the plaintiff makes rambling and meandering factual allegations. See generally FAC. As noted, the FAC largely recites the allegations already dismissed in Ananiev II, and Ananiev III, 968 F.Supp.2d 123, at *6. The FAC differs from the plaintiff's earlier complaints in that it adds the Law Enforcement Defendants, omits the Superior Court as a defendant, and pleads several additional causes of action. See FAC ¶ 1.
The crux of the plaintiff's claims is that the defendants, by their participation in the allegedly unlawful assignment of deed of trust, substitution of trustee, foreclosure of the California Property, and the eviction of the plaintiff from that property, violated his constitutional, statutory, and common law rights, as well as the consent decree Wells Fargo entered into, along with four
other major banks, in this Court, namely, the Consent Judgment in United States v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 12-CV-361, (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2012), ECF No. 11 (" Unrelated Consent Judgment" ). See generally FAC.
The plaintiff asserts eight separately captioned claims (" COA" ): (1) seeking compensatory damages " under common law," FAC ¶ ¶ 88-111, which the Court construes as claiming common law fraud, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" FDCPA" ), 15 U.S.C. § § 1692a et seq., or violation of the Unrelated Consent Judgment (" First COA" ); (2) violation of the plaintiff's due process rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress (" IIED" ) through the defendants' involvement with the foreclosure of the California Property (" Second COA" ), id. ¶ ¶ 112-31; (3) seeking cancellation of the Substitution of Trustee, Assignment of Deed of Trust, Notice of Default, and Notice of Trustee Sale as fraudulent documents (" Third COA" ), id. ¶ 130; (4) violations of the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § § 3729 et seq., pleaded as a relator bringing a qui tam civil action on behalf of the United States government (" Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh COAs" ), id. ¶ ¶ 132-63; and (5) alleging that the Law Enforcement ...