United States District Court, District of Columbia
Honorable Royce C. Lamberth United States District Court
motions before the Court concern two cases which one of the
parties has moved to consolidate. The defendants in Civil
Action No. 14-1868 have moved to dismiss and the plaintiffs
in Civil Action No. 15-2041 have moved to remand.
Steward and Karim Steward ("the Stewards") are
suing Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, L.P. ("Goldman
Sachs") and Litton Loan Servicing, L.P.
("Litton") for quiet title and declaratory relief
as to the interests in 715 S Street NW, Washington, D.C.
Goldman Sachs and Litton have filed a motion to dismiss Civil
Action No. 14-1868.
Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank") is suing
the Stewards in Civil Action No. 15-2041 for judicial
foreclosure on the same property and the case was removed to
this Court, but U.S. Bank has filed a motion to remand the
case to D.C. Superior Court. The Stewards have filed a motion
to consolidate the two cases.
motions to dismiss and remand are granted, rendering the
motion to consolidate moot.
Stewards obtained the deed to 715 S Street NW, Washington,
D.C, in November 2004 and used a mortgage loan to finance
their purchase. Steward Compl. ¶¶ 3, 7, ECF No. 1.
They used Fremont Investment & Loan ("Fremont"
or "Fremont Investment"), which did not have a
license to engage in mortgage lending in D.C. to refinance
their home for a lump sum cash payment in February 2006.
Id. ¶¶ 8-10. The Stewards executed two
Deeds of Trust ("Deed I" and "Deed II")
with Fremont Investment for loans of $624, 000 and $156, 000,
respectively. Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. Dismiss Exs.
B, C, ECF No. 6. The deeds state that Fremont Investment is
the lender and/or original payee on the Stewards' Note
and that Fremont possesses a security interest in the
property. Steward Compl. ¶ 15.
August 2008, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
("MERS"), as nominee for Fremont Investment,
transferred Fremont's interest under Deed I to U.S. Bank.
U.S. Bank Compl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 1. After the Stewards
missed several loan payments, U.S. Bank sent a demand letter
to the Stewards in April 2009 regarding their default.
Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. The Stewards failed to
cure their default and U.S. Bank attempted to foreclose on
the property. Id. at ¶ 18; Steward Compl.
¶ 18. In July, the D.C. Superior Court enjoined U.S.
Bank from selling the property on the scheduled date, Steward
Compl. ¶ 26, but the case was later dismissed by the
District Court due to the lack of responsiveness by the
Stewards' attorney, id. at ¶
U.S. Bank is the current holder and beneficiary under Deed
I.. U.S. Bank Compl. ¶ 15.
September 2011, MERS assigned Deed II to Goldman Sachs and
Goldman Sachs nominated Litton as its servicer. Steward
Compl. ¶¶ 40-41.
Stewards filed this action against Goldman Sachs and Litton
in D.C. Superior Court on October 10, 2014. Goldman Sachs and
Litton removed this case to the District Court in November
2014 and moved the court to dismiss the case. The Court
requested and received supplemental memoranda regarding the
D.C. Mortgage Lender and Broker Act of 1996, D.C. Code
§§26-1100 et. seq.
October 2015, U.S. Bank filed Civil Action No. 15-2041
against the Stewards in the Superior Court for the District
of Columbia. In November 2015, the Stewards removed the case
to this Court and moved to consolidate this case with Civil
Action No. 14-1868, in which the Stewards are plaintiffs.
U.S. Bank has moved to remand Civil Action No. 15-2041 back
to D.C. Superior Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff need only plead 'enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face'
and to 'nudge[ ] [his or her] claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible.'" Hunter v. District
of Columbia,64 F.Supp.3d 158, 165 (D.D.C. 2014)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face."' Ashcrofi v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Id. The Court must
accept as true all factual allegations contained in the
complaint and ...