Grisham v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, 4:11-cv-03680

Grisham purchased a Houston home in 2005 with a mortgage from Homecomings Financial Network, Inc.
Grisham defaulted on the Note in March 2009.
Grisham alleges an April 24, 2009 assignment of the Deed of Trust purported to transfer the Note to Deutsche Bank, signed by Jeffrey Stephan as Solely as Nominee for MERS.
Grisham asserts Stephan did not work for MERS and that Homecomings had merged, with Stephan as a robo-signer; he cites related litigation against Stephan and GMAC.
Deutsche Bank filed an expedited foreclosure in 2010; Bank later nonsuited in state court and removed the case to federal court in 2011; Grisham amended his complaint, then withdrew his fraud claim, but Deutsche Bank moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court granted Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, ruling there was no cognizable claim or case or controversy warranting relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Grisham’s claims are cognizable under Rule 12(b)(6) and the DJA	Grisham contends he seeks declaratory relief and a fraud claim.	Deutsche Bank argues no cognizable legal theory or case/controversy exists.	Granted; no cognizable claim for relief and no case or controversy.
Whether Grisham lacks standing to challenge the mortgage assignment	Grisham asserts ownership/interest to contest assignment.	DB argues Grisham has no standing to challenge the assignment.	Granted; lack of standing to challenge the assignment.
Whether the fraud claim meets Rule 9(b) particularity	Grisham alleges Deutsche Bank manufactured documents.	Fraud claim fails to identify misrepresentations, who made them, when, where, and what was obtained.	Granted; fraud claim dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b).
Whether the alleged wrongful foreclosure claim is cognizable	Grisham seeks relief addressing foreclosure rights.	No foreclosure sale has occurred; wrongful foreclosure not applicable.	Granted; no wrongful foreclosure claim arising from no foreclosure occurred.

Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (standard to plead a plausible claim under Rule 8)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (S. Ct. 2009) (heightened plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng'rs and Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (Texas fraud elements and standards cited)
Benchmark Elecs., Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 343 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) requires particulars of time, place, contents, speaker, and consequence)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Meadows, 877 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. 1994) (fraud elements under Texas law)
Sharnette Hyter v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 2011 WL 1781940 (N.D. Tex. 2011) (cited for wrongful foreclosure definition (not official reporter))
Lone Star Ladies Inv. Club v. Schlotzsky's Inc., 238 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2001) (Rule 9(b) applies to fraud claims, including misrepresentation)
Exxon Corp. v. Burglin, 4 F.3d 1294 (5th Cir. 1993) (cited in context of fraud elements)
Sid Richardson Carbon & Gasoline Co. v. Interenergy Resources, 99 F.3d 746 (5th Cir. 1996) (Declaratory Judgment Act remedial nature; no substantive rights conferred)