Davis v. DC 37 Municipal Employees Legal Service MELS
1:17-cv-04275
N.D. Ga.Jan 9, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Carolyn Davis, proceeding pro se, sued Municipal Employees Legal Service (MELS), its director Joan Beranbaum, and attorneys for legal malpractice arising from a mortgage loan modification she alleges she was "forced to sign" on October 28, 2011.
- Davis seeks to recover payment of an asserted $431,634.70 obligation under the alleged fraudulent modification.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under multiple grounds: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no diversity alleged), improper service/personal jurisdiction, statute of limitations, improper venue/forum non conveniens, and failure to state a claim. The motion was unopposed.
- The Complaint contains no allegations of parties’ citizenship necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction, though it pleads damages over $75,000.
- The Court treated the statute-of-limitations defense on the face of the complaint and found the alleged wrongful act occurred October 28, 2011; Georgia law provides a four-year limitations period for legal malpractice, so the October 26, 2017 suit is time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | Alleged damages exceed $75,000 (implying federal diversity jurisdiction) | Complaint lacks any allegations of the parties’ citizenship; therefore no basis for diversity | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Court requires citizenship allegations) |
| Statute of limitations for legal malpractice | Malpractice claim based on the 2011 modification; seeks relief for obligation under that modification | Legal malpractice claim accrued on 10/28/2011; Georgia’s four-year statute bars a suit filed 10/26/2017 | Dismissed as time-barred under O.C.G.A. §9-3-25 |
| Failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) | Complaint alleges negligence/legal malpractice causing a fraudulent modification | Complaint is conclusory and, in any event, barred by limitations so fails to state a plausible claim | Court would dismiss under 12(b)(6) as well (limitations and pleading deficiencies) |
| Service/personal jurisdiction, venue, forum non conveniens | Plaintiff did not oppose or substantively respond | Defendants contend improper service and Georgia is an improper venue; forum non conveniens asserted | Court declined to resolve these additional arguments as dismissal was warranted on jurisdictional and statute-of-limitations grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (federal courts apply forum-state substantive law under Erie)
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (Erie doctrine includes use of forum state’s statute of limitations when outcome would be affected)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards require plausible claims, not mere conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must contain factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840 (statute-of-limitations defenses ordinarily affirmative but may be resolved on face of complaint if time-barred)
- Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957 (distinguishing facial and factual Rule 12(b)(1) attacks)
- Duke Galish LLC v. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, 653 S.E.2d 791 (Georgia recognizes a four-year statute for legal malpractice claims)