Daniel D. Dragash v. Federal National Mortgage Association
700 F. App'x 939
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2002 Dragash executed a $229,000 promissory note and mortgage originally in favor of Chase Manhattan; Chase Manhattan assigned the mortgage to Fannie Mae three days later and then recorded the mortgage. The assignment was not recorded. The copy of the note filed bore a blank endorsement signed by a Chase Manhattan assistant secretary.
- Dragash (pro se) sued Fannie Mae and Chase in Florida state court (Dec. 2014), alleging multiple theories to void the note and mortgage (invalid endorsement, non-negotiability, improper securitization, force-placed insurance violations, false accounting, failure to produce original note). No foreclosure was pending at filing.
- Defendants removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction; the district court denied Dragash’s motion to remand and the parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
- Dragash filed a second amended complaint after two prior amendments. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the magistrate stayed discovery pending the motion and then dismissed the complaint with prejudice as futile, denying further leave to amend.
- Dragash’s post-judgment motions under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) were denied; he appealed challenging remand denial, dismissal/denial to amend, and the discovery stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand to state court | Dragash argued removal was improper and remand required; alleged due-process concerns | Defendants asserted valid diversity jurisdiction and timely/appropriate removal grounds | Court affirmed denial of remand: diversity jurisdiction proper; no basis to abstain; procedural defects in removal insufficient to vacate judgment |
| Failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)) | Note/mortgage void because endorsement unauthorized, note non-negotiable, securitization invalid, fraudulent possession/refusal to produce original note, RESPA/force-placed insurance violations, accounting errors | Defendants argued the complaint lacked plausible factual allegations and, for fraud-based claims, failed Rule 9(b) specificity | Court affirmed dismissal: claims were conclusory, lacked factual detail to be plausible, and fraud allegations failed Rule 9(b) where applicable |
| Leave to amend | Dragash sought another opportunity to amend to cure defects | Defendants argued prior opportunities were given and further amendment would be futile | Court affirmed denial of leave: futility after multiple unsuccessful amendments |
| Stay of discovery/mediation | Dragash argued stay was improper and prejudicial | Defendants argued dismissal motion could resolve case and stay conserved resources | Court affirmed magistrate’s discretion to stay discovery while the dispositive motion was resolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plead factual content showing plausible entitlement to relief)
- American Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (12(b)(6) and plausibility review)
- Henderson v. Washington Nat’l Ins. Co., 454 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for remand denial)
- Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2016) (RESPA claim requires actual damages)
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (district courts’ broad discretion to manage cases, including staying discovery)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)