Jones v. Deutsch Bank National Trust Company
3:17-cv-01319
M.D. Tenn.Oct 16, 2017Background
- Yvonne Jones, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Deutsche Bank alleging wrongful foreclosure of her Nashville property (3013 Chateau Valley Drive) and seeking damages and injunctive/declaratory relief.
- Jones has repeatedly litigated challenges to the same foreclosure in multiple prior actions (federal and state); prior federal suits were dismissed for failure to plead jurisdictional facts or adequate factual support.
- In this action Jones alleges her promissory note and deed of trust were forged, that Deutsche Bank acquired the property at a 2015 foreclosure sale using forged documents, and that trustee banks and servicers fabricated mortgage assignments to conceal missing trust documentation.
- The complaint principally reiterates allegations copied from prior consumer-finance enforcement pleadings (CFPB/attorneys general) and earlier suits; it names only Deutsche Bank and omits Ocwen despite many allegations focusing on Ocwen’s conduct.
- The Court screened the pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Iqbal/Twombly standards, found the pleading jurisdictionally and substantively deficient, and considered whether federal jurisdiction or a private CFPA claim exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff states a federal claim under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) | Jones alleges CFPA violations by servicers and Deutsche Bank based on unfair loan servicing and fabricated assignments | Deutsche Bank (and court) note Jones fails to plead facts showing Deutsche Bank committed CFPA violations; Ocwen (the servicer) is not a defendant | Court: CFPA provisions at issue do not provide a private right of action; CFPA claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether the complaint establishes federal-question or diversity jurisdiction | Jones invokes federal statutes and alleges federal wrongdoing copied from CFPB materials | Complaint lacks facts tying Deutsche Bank to the federal violations and omits diversity allegations | Court: No basis shown for original federal jurisdiction; federal claims fail |
| Whether state-law wrongful-foreclosure claims may proceed in federal court | Jones seeks restitution and Tennessee common-law relief based on alleged forged note/deed | Defendant argues federal court should not adjudicate state foreclosure appeal/claims; prior state judgments exist | Court: Declines supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); state-law claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether this action is an impermissible collateral attack on a state-court judgment (Rooker–Feldman) | Jones attempts to “appeal” a Tennessee court’s Writ of Restitution to federal district court | Deutsche Bank asserts Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of state-court decisions; federal court lacks appellate jurisdiction | Court: Rooker–Feldman applies; district court lacks jurisdiction to review state-court judgment—claims that seek to overturn state judgment are improper here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards: legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (6th Cir.: § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal standard follows Iqbal/Twombly)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal district courts lack appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (Rooker–Feldman doctrine explained)
- Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., 434 F.3d 432 (6th Cir.: application of Rooker–Feldman)
- Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (district judges have no obligation to act as counsel for pro se litigants)