Jackson v. ASA Holdings, LLC
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118320
| D.D.C. | 2010Background
- Jackson, a DC resident, owned two properties foreclosed in Feb. 2010, facing eviction.
- She alleges misrepresentations by ASA Holdings (GA) and Capital One (VA) regarding loan modification and relief options.
- Complaint asserts DCCPPA, FDCPA, and common-law claims of fraud and wrongful foreclosure.
- Court notes Capital One, N.A. is the proper defendant; ASA Holdings challenges subject matter jurisdiction and adequacy of claims.
- Motions to dismiss were filed; Jackson did not file timely opposition, enabling conceding of the motions under Local Rule 7(b).
- Judge sua sponte considers merits, including lack of specificity in allegations and failure to plead damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motions may be treated as conceded | Jackson opposed none; arguments not presented. | Motions should be considered conceded due to lack of opposition. | Yes; motions treated as conceded and action dismissed. |
| Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction | Complaint invokes diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. | Diversity may be improper; however, federal question exists via FDCPA claim. | Court may exercise jurisdiction under federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. |
| Whether Counts I–II state a DCCPPA claim with adequate particularity and damages | Defendants misrepresented modification processes and assistance. | Allegations lack particularity and fail to show damages. | DCCPPA claims dismissed for lack of damages and specificity. |
| Whether Count III states a valid FDCPA claim | Foreclosure with alleged fraudulent assistance violated FDCPA. | Neither defendant is a debt collector nor behavior stated violates §1692d. | FDCPA claim dismissed; defendants not debt collectors; no harassment shown. |
| Whether Counts IV–V state fraud or wrongful foreclosure claims | Actions constitute fraud and wrongful foreclosure. | Pleading deficient under Rule 9(b); no clear causal link to damages. | Fraud and wrongful-foreclosure claims dismissed; no proper pleading of fraud or law-contrary foreclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (facially plausible claims required)
- Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (liberal pleading inferences for pro se plaintiffs)
- Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (court may consider external materials on jurisdiction)
- Osbourne v. Capital City Mortg. Corp., 667 A.2d 1321 (D.C. 1995) (standing requirement for DCCPPA claims)
- Johnson v. Fairfax Village Condominium IV Unit Owners Ass'n, 641 A.2d 495 (D.C. 1994) (essential element of wrongful foreclosure claim)
- Young v. 1st Am. Fin. Servs., 992 F. Supp. 440 (D.D.C. 1998) (foreclosure damages require showing violation of foreclosure law)
- Phrasavang v. Deutsche Bank, 656 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D.D.C. 2009) (pleading particularity in fraud claims)
- Williams v. Purdue Pharma Co., 297 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D.D.C. 2003) (damages requirement for DCCPPA standing)