Fontaine v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67425
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Fontaine sues pro se to block a hypothetical future foreclosure on a Florida property, seeking injunctive relief and damages from Chase, Fannie Mae, and unnamed defendants.
- The complaint alleges improper handling of the Note’s assignment and securitization, and seeks to declare Fontaine’s superiority of title and to prohibit future foreclosures.
- Fontaine asserts due process violations under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and emotional distress related to the securitization process.
- Defendants answered with multiple affirmative defenses, including lack of standing and failure to state a claim, and argued no irreparable injury or adequate remedy at law.
- The court sua sponte dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (no actual or threatened injury) and failure to state a plausible claim, dismissing the entire action.
- The ruling rests on lack of Article III standing for a hypothetical injury and on precedent rejecting securitization-based challenges and enforcement of a consent judgment by individual borrowers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge future foreclosure | Fontaine alleges potential injury if foreclosure occurs | No current injury; only a hypothetical future event | Lacks standing; injunctive relief dismissed |
| Effect of securitization and non-physical possession of Note | Separation of Note from Mortgage invalidates assignment | Assignment/foreclosure rights do not require physical possession | No plausible claim; securitization does not defeat foreclosure rights |
| Enforceability of Consent Judgment by a private borrower | Chase/Defendants violated the Consent Judgment | Consent Judgment unenforceable by individual borrowers | No enforceable action by Fontaine; claims dismissed |
| Injunctive relief viability | Immediate injunction to prevent future foreclosure | No irreparable injury; remedy at law exists | Injunctive relief denied; complaint dismissed under 12(h)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. FDIC, 870 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.D.C. 2012) (standing where no foreclosure injury)
- Silvious v. Coca-Cola Co., 893 F. Supp.2d 233 (D.D.C. 2012) (standing; concrete, particularized injury required)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury-in-fact)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (S. Ct. 2013) (injury must be concrete, particular, and imminent)
- Banner Health v. Sebelius, 905 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2012) (treatment of allegations as true for jurisdictional review)
- Busby v. Capital One, N.A., 932 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D.D.C. 2013) (foreclosure rights do not require physical possession of Note)