Knopp v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
1:16-cv-02330
N.D. Ill.Jul 25, 2017Background
- Knopp obtained a mortgage in 2005, defaulted in 2009, and faced two foreclosure actions (2011, 2015) related to property in Alsip, Illinois; the Trust, servicers (BANA, later SPS), foreclosure counsel (Nevel, Pierce), CoreLogic, MERS, and the Village are named defendants.
- Assignments of the mortgage were recorded in 2011 and 2012; CoreLogic and Nevel prepared recorded documents; the Trust voluntarily dismissed the 2011 foreclosure and later filed a second foreclosure still pending in state court.
- In July 2014 Knopp sent a letter seeking broad “forensic” documentation of the loan; Pierce and SPS exchanged correspondence about debt-collection and records.
- Knopp filed this pro se federal suit challenging title, assignment/securitization practices, and defendants’ conduct; he alleged fraud, RESPA violations, RICO, False Claims Act relief, and §§ 1985/1986 conspiracies.
- The district court previously dismissed an earlier complaint with leave to amend; Knopp’s first amended complaint narrowed claims but the court again found pleading defects and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPS violated RESPA § 2605(e) by failing to respond to Knopp’s July 18, 2014 letter | Knopp says his July 2014 letter requested loan information and triggered servicer duties under RESPA | SPS says the letter sought origination/ownership information (not servicing) and thus was not a qualified written request (QWR) | Dismissed — letter did not qualify as a QWR; RESPA claim fails |
| Whether defendants committed common-law fraud by using false documents in foreclosure | Knopp alleges defendants used false documents and misrepresented ownership/standing | Defendants argue pleading lacks particularity and fails to identify who did what when and how | Dismissed — fraud allegations fail Rule 9(b) for lack of particularity and group pleading |
| Whether filing foreclosure actions and related conduct establish a civil RICO violation | Knopp contends defendants engaged in an ongoing fraudulent enterprise and predicate acts constituting a pattern of racketeering | Defendants contend RICO requires a defined enterprise, related predicate acts, and a threat of continuing activity; foreclosure allegations are ordinary state-law disputes | Dismissed — enterprise and pattern inadequately pleaded; scheme targets only Knopp and does not show RICO pattern |
| Whether Knopp may pursue relief under FCA and §§ 1985/1986 conspiracy claims | Knopp seeks share of government settlement / alleges conspiracies to deprive him of property using false documents | Defendants argue FCA relief cannot be pursued pro se on behalf of government; §§ 1985/1986 require class-based discriminatory animus and a properly pleaded conspiracy | Dismissed — FCA relief not available here; §§ 1985/1986 fail for lack of class-based discriminatory animus and inadequate conspiracy allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state plausible claim and factual content to permit reasonable inference of liability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Catalan v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 629 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2011) (definition and requirements of a RESPA qualified written request)
- DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1990) (Rule 9(b) fraud pleading requires who, what, when, where, and how)
- Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merch. Servs., Inc., 20 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 1994) (in multi-defendant fraud suits, complaint must inform each defendant of his alleged participation)
- Jennings v. Auto Meter Prods., Inc., 495 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2007) (RICO should not convert ordinary fraud claims into federal RICO actions)
- Stachon v. United Consumers Club, 229 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2000) (requirements for pleading an association-in-fact RICO enterprise)
- Slaney v. The Int’l Amateur Athletic Fed’n, 244 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2001) (single-victim fraud does not establish RICO pattern)
- Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of amended complaint after prior dismissal)