Clark v. MorEquity, Inc.
1:11-cv-00013
W.D.N.C.Feb 28, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Martina E. Clark filed a pro se action in the Western District of North Carolina asserting claims related to eviction/foreclosure and alleged property conversion.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction due to diversity allegations conflicting with a NC resident defendant.
- Plaintiff filed amended Complaint, objections, and a motion to drop a non-diverse defendant, after the Magistrate's recommendation.
- The objections were timely served but the envelope indicated filing occurred after the deadline, rendering objections untimely.
- Court conducted a de novo review only if timely objections existed; otherwise the court reviews for clear error (frivolous/merits standard under §1915(e)(2)).
- Court found the Amended Complaint deficient: no clear facts showing a foreclosure/eviction proceeding, no identifiable wrongful conduct, and no facts supporting conversion, unfair trade practices, or emotional distress claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Amended Complaint state a plausible claim for relief? | Clark contends there are factual predicates supporting conversion and related claims. | Defendants argue the pleading lacks factual support and fails to state a claim under governing standards. | Yes, the claims fail; the complaint is not plausible and is frivolous. |
| Should the objections to the M&R be considered given timeliness? | Objections were timely filed within the twenty-one days (as amended) but were later deemed untimely due to mailing date. | Untimely objections are not entitled to de novo review; standard is clear error review if untimely. | Objections untimely; de novo review not required. |
| Whether the action should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious under §1915(e)(2)? | Plaintiff asserts state-law and miscellaneous claims arising from eviction/foreclosure. | Claims are factually and legally baseless and repetitive filings previously deemed frivolous. | Yes; action dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. |
| Does diversity jurisdiction exist after amendment? | Plaintiff sought to preserve federal jurisdiction via monetary threshold and amended pleadings. | Defendant(s) are residents of North Carolina; diversity not established. | Dismissal not based on jurisdictional-merits; court dismisses for failure to state a claim. |
| Should the related motion to drop a defendant be resolved? | Drop the non-diverse defendant to preserve jurisdiction. | No need to maintain the dropped party; court can proceed with dismissal. | Denied as moot; dismissal stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; more than labels required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (no bare recitals of elements; must plead plausible facts)
- Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (plausibility standard applies to claims for relief)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (frivolous filings may be dismissed)
- Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310 (4th Cir. 1996) (deference to district court discretion in §1915 dismissals)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (frivolous or malicious standard under §1915)
- Day v. Rasmussen, 177 N.C. App. 759 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006) (definition of conversion under North Carolina law)