Burns v. Wells Fargo Bank NA
3:14-cv-03866
N.D. Tex.Oct 7, 2015Background
- Foreclosure case in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) involving Kenneth Burns and Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
- Plaintiff filed the pro se complaint on October 14, 2014 alleging fraud in the foreclosure and seeking $5,000,000 in damages.
- Defendant Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) on March 4, 2015.
- The court applies Rule 12(b)(6) standards and notes pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards but must contain plausible facts, not mere conclusions.
- Plaintiff’s amended pleading attempts in response are considered for potential amendment, but the court finds the fraud allegations lack the requisite specificity under Rule 9(b), and under Rule 12(b)(6) the claim fails.
- The court recommends granting dismissal with prejudice if no amended complaint is filed within 14 days, otherwise denial as moot and proceed on the amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fraud claim is pled with sufficient specificity | Burns alleges mortgage fraud related to foreclosures. | Fraud claim lacks particularity and falsity; no reliance pleaded. | Fraud claim insufficient under Rule 9(b) and 12(b)(6) |
| Whether the fraud claim meets the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) | Plaintiff identifies who, when, and context of fraud. | What, where, and how of fraud are missing; allegations inadequate. | Rule 9(b) not satisfied; claim fails for lack of particularity |
| Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint | Amendment should be permitted to state a claim. | No amendment asserted or granted; new allegations not properly before court. | Court notes potential for amendment but no amendment currently before the court; opportunity to amend may be granted |
| What is the court's recommended disposition if no amendment is filed | N/A | Dismiss with prejudice if no amendment. | Grant dismissal with prejudice if no amended complaint filed within 14 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Benchmark Electronics, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 343 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2003) (requirements of Rule 9(b)—the who, what, when, where, and how—must be pled)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; legal conclusions not accepted as true)
- Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace, 954 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1992) (pleading standards for fraud; need specific facts)
- Shandong Yinguang Chem. Indus. Joint Stock Co. Ltd. v. Potter, 607 F.3d 1029 (5th Cir. 2010) (Texas fraud elements; reliance and material misrepresentation)
- Williams v. WMX Techs., 112 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 9(b) pleading requires specificity)
- Ernst & Young, L.L.P. v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 51 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2001) (Texas law on fraud elements)