Gray v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
4:12-cv-00576
E.D. Tex.Jun 18, 2013Background
- Aug. 10, 2007, Gray executed a Note and Deed of Trust on property at 2668 Pine Trail Drive, Little Elm, TX; Security National Mortgage Company listed as lender.
- Plaintiff Gray sued in state court Aug. 29, 2012; case was removed to this court on Sept. 6, 2012; action is to quiet title with declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Gray claims Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is not the mortgagee/servicer and seeks to stop foreclosure; foreclosure reportedly occurred December 2012.
- Wells Fargo moved to dismiss on Apr. 1, 2013, arguing failure to plead a plausible quiet-title claim and lack of standing to challenge assignments; default alleged.
- On May 17, 2013, court noted no response and indicated it would treat as unopposed under Local Rule CV-7(d); plaintiff did not amend or respond.
- Court grants motion to dismiss with prejudice and abates scheduling deadlines pending district judge’s disposition; potential amended scheduling order if matter not dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gray’s quiet-title claim is plausible | Gray argues Wells Fargo lacks authority | Wells Fargo authorized as servicer; no facts show Gray’s superior title | Dismissed; claim not plausible |
| Standing to challenge assignments | Gray lacks standing to challenge assignments | Standing required but not shown | Dismissed; lack of standing |
| Gray’s default precludes superior title | Gray asserts entitlement despite default | Default defeats superior title | Dismissed; no plausible entitlement |
| Injunctive relief warranted | As relief, injunction to prevent foreclosure | No substantial likelihood of success on merits | Dismissed; no entitlement to injunctive relief |
| Overall dismissal with prejudice and scheduling abatement | Granted; dismissal with prejudice and abatement of deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007) (standard for pleading plausibility; factual allegations required to be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; factual matter required)
- Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009) (if facts do not allow inferential plausibility, claim fails)
- Fricks v. Hancock, 45 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2001) (burden on plaintiff to prove superior title in quiet-title action)
- Hahn v. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], 2009) (requires plaintiff to show superior equity and right to relief)
- DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996) (emphasizes pleading burden and likelihood of success on merits)
- Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, 394 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2004) (supports dismissal where no state-title allegations present)