United States District Court, District of Columbia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. FRIEDRICH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
December 28, 2018, the pro se plaintiffs filed suit
against 161 defendants, including every state in the United
States and the District of Columbia. Compl. at 6-30, Dkt. 1.
On April 18, 2019, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims without prejudice on sovereign immunity grounds for
the claims brought against state entities, officials, and
agencies. See Memorandum Opinion and Order of April
before the Court are several motions to dismiss filed by the
remaining defendants. See Dkts. 26, 45, 47, 49, 54,
56-57, 63, 65, 71-74, 83-84, 87, 88. For the reasons below,
the Court will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter
plaintiffs filed suit against 161 defendants, Compl. at 6-9,
Dkt. 1, alleging three counts: (1) “unfair and
deceptive practices with respect to loan servicing, ”
Compl. at 66, (2) “unfair and deceptive practices with
respect to foreclosure processing, ” Compl. at 67, and
(3) “violations of the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 . . . (FIRREA), ”
April 4, 2019 through April 12, 2019, several defendants
filed motions to dismiss; see Dkts. 26, 33, 36-37,
45, 47, 49-50, 54, 56-57, 60, 63, 65, 67, 69-77, 83;
including motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); see Dkts.
33, 36- 37, 45, 50, 57, 70, 73-77.
April 18, 2019, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims on sovereign immunity grounds, without prejudice, with
respect to “all of the individual states, state
entities, and state officials.” Memorandum Opinion and
Order of April 18, 2019; see Dkt. 80. However, the
Court did not rule on motions filed by the remaining parties.
See Dkts. 26, 45, 47, 49, 54, 56-57, 63, 65, 71-74,
in the Court's April 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order, the plaintiffs were advised, pursuant to Fox v.
Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), that a
failure to respond to the pending motions to dismiss could
result in the Court treating the motions as conceded, ruling
on the defendants' motion based on the defendants'
arguments alone, or dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for
failure to prosecute. Dkt. 80. The Court further instructed
the plaintiffs to “file a brief in opposition to the
defendants' Motions to Dismiss on or before May 17,
2019” and to “show cause . . . why this case
should not be dismissed for improper service of process or
lack of jurisdiction.” Id.
the Court's April 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
additional motions to dismiss were filed. See Dkts.
84, 87, 88. Out of the motions that remain pending, several
seek to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). See Dkts.
45, 57, 73, 74, 88. On May 22, 2019, the Court received a
Response to the Court's April 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order from the plaintiffs. Dkt. 90. However, the
plaintiffs' response failed to include any arguments that
support the Court revisiting its sovereign immunity ruling or
exercising jurisdiction here. Accordingly, the Court will
dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, without prejudice, for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) requires that the plaintiff
bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the
evidence that the court has jurisdiction to entertain his
claims.” Tremel v. Bierman & Geesing, 251
F.Supp.2d 40, 43 (D.D.C. 2003). “[B]ecause the
plaintiff has the burden of establishing the Court's
jurisdiction, the ‘plaintiff's factual allegations
in the complaint . . . will bear closer scrutiny in resolving
a 12(b)(1) motion' than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion
for failure to state a claim.” Id. (citing
Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v.
Ashcroft, 185 F.Supp.2d 9, 13-14 (D.D.C. 2001). The
Court “is not limited to the allegations in the
complaint, but may consider material outside of the complaint
in an effort to determine whether the court has jurisdiction
in the case.” Id. (collecting cases).
“Whenever it appears . . . that the court lacks
jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss
the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); see also
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004).
complaint alleges that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on two grounds.
Compl. at 30. It first asserts jurisdiction on the basis of
28 U.S.C. § 1355(a) due to an alleged violation of 31
U.S.C. § 3732(a) of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31
U.S.C. §§ 3729-33. Id. Next it asserts
federal question jurisdiction through the Uniform Commercial
Code (U.C.C.) § 3-603, 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 3603, and
N.J. Stat. § 12A:3-603. Id. at 30-31.
Additionally, the Civil Cover Sheet filed with the complaint
indicates that subject matter jurisdiction is also based on
diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. 1-1.
counts of the complaint assert additional grounds for subject
matter jurisdiction. Compl. at 66-67. Counts I and II allege
“unfair and deceptive practices” in violations of
state laws for loan servicing and foreclosure
processing.Id. Count III asserts federal
question jurisdiction under FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. § 1833a,
as well as through violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).
Compl. at 67. The Court will ...