Fontaine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
3:16-cv-01301
M.D. Fla.Aug 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Julie Elice Fontaine, James Thompson, and Nancy James sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) and PHH Mortgage Corporation (PHH); defendants moved to dismiss.
- Magistrate Judge Richardson recommended dismissal of the action; plaintiffs filed a general objection and, without leave, an Amended Complaint.
- Thompson and James filed a joint filing construed by the court as a notice of voluntary dismissal.
- The Magistrate found Fontaine’s amended pleading to be an impermissible shotgun pleading, deficient under the Federal Rules, and previously criticized in a related case.
- The district court overruled Fontaine’s generalized objection, adopted the Report as to Fontaine, dismissed Fontaine’s claims with prejudice, and dismissed Thompson and James without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fontaine’s complaint states a claim or is a shotgun pleading | Fontaine asserted her claims were meritorious and should not be dismissed | Chase/PHH argued the pleading is a shotgun, conclusory, fails to differentiate defendants, and fails to state claims | Court adopted Magistrate’s recommendation: Fontaine’s claims dismissed with prejudice for shotgun pleading and failure to state a claim |
| Whether Thompson and James’s claims remain after defendants’ motions | Plaintiffs did not oppose dismissal and filed a joint motion construed as voluntary dismissal | Defendants argued lack of standing and also moved to dismiss | Court treated the joint filing as Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal and dismissed Thompson and James without prejudice |
| Whether Fontaine’s general objection requires de novo review of factual findings | Fontaine argued dismissal was premature and her claims meritorious | Defendants urged that objections were non-specific and insufficient for de novo review | Court held Fontaine’s objections were general/conclusory and did not trigger de novo review; Magistrate’s factual findings adopted |
| Whether the post-objection Amended Complaint should be permitted | Fontaine filed an Amended Complaint without leave, asserting some same and some new claims | Defendants sought leave to respond and argued amendment was improper and futile | Court found the Amended Complaint improperly filed and futile as to the asserted claims and therefore did not cure deficiencies; dismissal with prejudice stood |
Key Cases Cited
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993) (district court need not conduct de novo review when no specific factual objections are filed)
- Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994) (district court must review legal conclusions de novo)
- Macort v. Prem, Inc., [citation="208 F. App'x 781"] (11th Cir. 2006) (generalized objections to a magistrate’s report are insufficient for de novo review)
- Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1988) (objections must specifically identify findings objected to)
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009) (requiring identification of portions of report for specific consideration)
- Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1991) (Erie doctrine: state substantive law and federal procedural law in diversity cases)
- Hollis v. Fla. State Univ., 259 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2001) (Federal Rules govern procedure after removal)
- Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2007) (exhibits attached to a complaint govern when they contradict conclusory allegations)
- Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (11th Cir. 2016) (reiterating that attached exhibits can control over pleading assertions)