Dunbar, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al, No. 12-2076 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseHomeowners challenged the validity of the foreclosure of their home mortgages. The district court dismissed the suit under Rule 12(b)(6). The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the law firm as fraudulently joined and concluded that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal because the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction was inapplicable. The court concluded that Homeowners' pleadings mirrored those in Karnatcheva v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and affirmed the district court's dismissal. Homeowners have failed to plead factual content that permitted the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct where the pleadings contained nothing but naked assertions that one or more of the named defendants suspected that Wells Fargo lacked legal title to the mortgages yet chose to publish statements to the contrary. The district court was well within its discretion to file sanctions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: Civil case. Dismissal for failure to state a claim affirmed on the basis of this court's prior opinions in Karnatcheva v. J.P. Morgan, 704 F.3d 545 (8th Cir. 2013) and Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs, LLC 699 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2011); district court was well within its discretion to impose sanctions where plaintiff's counsel engaged in fraudulent joinder to avoid federal jurisdiction and filed a complaint "blatantly premised on the show-me-the-note theory'" previously rejected by this court and the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.