Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage
5:18-cv-05072
W.D. Ark.Jun 4, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Norma Robinson sued Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C. (Mackie Wolf) and Nationstar after an allegedly wrongful foreclosure following her husband’s death.
- Robinson alleges multiple claims (res judicata, breach of contract, negligence, violations of Arkansas foreclosure law, bad faith, conversion, unconscionability, constructive fraud, ADTPA violations, IIED) but generally fails to specify which defendant is liable for each claim.
- Robinson asserts that she and “each of the Defendants,” including Mackie Wolf, executed a prior settlement agreement and final judgment dismissing an earlier foreclosure action with prejudice.
- Court attachment documents show Mackie Wolf acted as Nationstar’s counsel and was not a signatory or party to the settlement agreement.
- Mackie Wolf moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting statutory immunity because it was not in privity with Robinson and acted as counsel; Robinson did not plead fraud with particularity or allege facts showing Mackie Wolf acted outside its advocacy role.
- The court granted Mackie Wolf’s motion and dismissed all claims against it without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mackie Wolf can be sued for conduct in foreclosure | Robinson says Mackie Wolf participated in and is liable for the foreclosure and signed the settlement | Mackie Wolf says it only acted as Nationstar’s counsel and is immune absent privity or fraud | Dismissed: attorney immune; no plausible allegations of fraud or privity |
| Whether complaint pleads fraud sufficient to overcome attorney immunity | Robinson alleges wrongdoing but provides no particularized fraud facts | Mackie Wolf asserts no particularized allegations of intentional misrepresentation by its attorneys | Dismissed: fraud not pleaded with required particularity |
| Whether plaintiff alleged facts tying Mackie Wolf to the settlement agreement | Robinson alleges all defendants executed the settlement | Mackie Wolf points to attached court documents showing it was counsel, not a party | Dismissed: allegation implausible given attached documents |
| Whether complaint meets Rule 8/12(b)(6) plausibility standard | Robinson contends claims are sufficient to proceed | Mackie Wolf contends facts are insufficient to state plausible claims against it | Dismissed: complaint fails to state a plausible claim against Mackie Wolf |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (standard for notice pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility requirement under Rule 8)
- Ashley Cty., Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659 (accept factual allegations as true; draw inferences for plaintiff)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual content to state plausible claim)