McCarter v. Bank of New York
873 F. Supp. 2d 246
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiff Vivian McCarter obtained a $270,000 mortgage from Countrywide, later acquired by Bank of America (BANA).
- The loan was secured by her residence at 1805 A Street SE, DC, and refinanced through a Deed of Trust and Promissory Note.
- Plaintiff sought a loan modification, which was denied; she attributes the denial to underwriting standards and failure to locate the Promissory Note.
- BANA foreclosed on the property, resulting in loss of home and damages claims against multiple defendants including MERS, Fannie Mae, BNY, BGW, and BANA.
- Plaintiff filed suit in DC Superior Court (Nov. 2011); defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court granted both motions to dismiss, holding the complaint was incoherent, conclusory, and failed to state a plausible claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a plausible claim against the defendants. | McCarter asserts broad misconduct including improper foreclosure. | Defendants argue the complaint is incoherent and conclusory. | Dismissal granted; claims fail under 12(b)(6). |
| Whether claims against MERS, Fannie Mae, or BNY are adequately pled. | Plaintiff alleges lost note and underwriting failures. | No specific factual allegations against these entities. | Claims against these entities dismissed for lack of plausible facts. |
| Whether fraud and gross negligence claims are pled with particularity. | Claims rely on misrepresentations to induce foreclosure. | Allegations are legal conclusions, not facts. | Fraud and negligence claims dismissed for failure to plead with particularity. |
| Whether BGW and BANA have pled duties and causation sufficient for negligence/fraud. | BANA and BGW allegedly engaged in improper procedures. | Plaintiff fails to show specific duties or causal link. | Claims dismissed for lack of factual basis and causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; threadbare recitals fail)
- Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (court may not accept unwarranted inferences)
- Poblete v. Goldberg, 680 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2009) (minimal pleading standard; avoid rambling complaints)
- Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (rejects unsupported inferences and legal conclusions as facts)
- EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (takes judicial notice of certain matters; standard of review)