Molina v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al, No. 8:2014cv00513 - Document 18 (D. Md. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 8/27/14 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/27/14. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : JUAN MOLINA : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 14-0513 : JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution in this foreclosure case is the unopposed motion to dismiss filed by Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ( JP Morgan ). (ECF No. 14). property Plaintiff purports to be the owner of real located at 11812 Dewey Road, Silver Spring, Maryland 20906. It appears that all of Plaintiff s claims stem from a loan obtained from First National Bank of Arizona on April 27, 2007 in the amount of $468,000. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a Deed of Trust. (ECF Nos. 14-3 and 14-4). April 2012, the note was assigned to Defendant. Although factually sparse, Plaintiff s In (ECF No. 14-5). complaint alleges that there is uncertainty about the note s holder and the amount due on the loan. On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County. Defendant represents that it received a copy of the complaint and summons on January 24, 2014 (ECF No. 1 ΒΆ 2), and removed the case to this court on February 21, 2014, citing diversity jurisdiction.1 fraud and deceit, Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, accounting, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quiet title, and declaratory relief. On February 28, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. provided with a Roseboro (ECF No. 14). notice, which Plaintiff was advised him of the pendency of the motion and his entitlement to respond within seventeen (17) days from the date of the letter. (ECF No. 15); Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right responsive material to a motion for summary judgment). to file To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the time for him to do so has long expired. Indeed, he has not filed anything at all since the case was removed from state court. Because Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to the motion, the court has the discretion to dismiss the case without reaching the merits. Indeed, Judge Hollander recently dismissed the complaint in White v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., No. ELH-1300031, 2014 WL 1369609, at *2 (D.Md. Apr. 4, 2014), where pro se plaintiff failed to oppose defendant s motion to dismiss. 1 Judge Plaintiff is a citizen of Maryland while Defendant is a citizen of Ohio. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 2 Hollander stated that [w]hen a plaintiff fails to oppose a motion to dismiss, a district court is entitled, as authorized, to rule on the . . . motion and dismiss [the] suit on the uncontroverted bases asserted in the motion. Id. (quoting Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354 (4th Cir. 2004)); Ferdinand-Davenport v. Children s Guild, 742 F.Supp.2d 772, 777 (D.Md. 2010) ( By her failure to respond to [defendant s] argument in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff abandons [her] claim. ). Although the district court also has discretion to decline to grant a motion to dismiss based on the failure to file a timely opposition when the motion is plainly lacking in merit, this is not the case here. White, 2014 WL 1369609, at *2 (quoting United States v. Sasscer, Civ. No. Y-97-3026, 2000 WL 1479154, at *2 n.6 (D.Md. Aug. 25, 2000)). Moreover, a district court has the inherent authority . . . to dismiss a lawsuit sua sponte for failure to prosecute. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 236 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)); White, 2014 WL 1369609, at *2 ( [i]n light of plaintiff s failure to oppose the [m]otion, I can only assume that plaintiff concedes that her Complaint is deficient for the reasons stated by defendant. ). There is no obvious lack of merit in Defendant s motion given the dearth of factual allegations in Plaintiff s complaint. None of the meager facts give rise to a claim to quiet title or 3 any other cognizable cause of action. motion to dismiss will be granted. Accordingly, Defendant s A separate order follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 4 will
]]>
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.
