Minson v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 8:2012cv02233 - Document 10 (D. Md. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DENYING 9 motion for more definite statement and DIRECTING Defendant to file either a motion to dismiss or an answer to Plaintiffs complaint within fourteen (14) days (c/m to Plaintiff 11/9/12 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 11/9/12. (sat, Chambers)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : ERIN S. MINSON : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 12-2233 : CITIMORTGAGE, INC. : MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Erin S. Minson, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on June 25, 2012, by filing a complaint against Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc., in the Circuit Court for Charles County, Maryland. The complaint, which is inartfully drafted, appears to relate to Defendant s alleged failure to respond, or the insufficiency of its response, to documents entitled Qualified Written Request/Validation of Debt and Request for First and Second Admissions transmitted by Plaintiff in April 2012. No. 4 ¶ 6). no legal against (ECF As a result, according to Plaintiff, Defendant has authority her. (Id. to proceed at ¶ 10). with collection Plaintiff activities contends that, [p]ursuant to fact, Statute, the Constitution for the United States, the Constitution for Maryland, the Uniform Commercial Code . . . , the Fair Debt Collection[] Practices Act [ FDCPA ] . . . , the alleged loan agreement[], and all applicable law, Defendant is now in default and without claim. (Id. at ¶ 12). As relief, she seeks an order enjoining the collection [and/or] foreclosure of [her] property. attempted (Id. at 3). Plaintiff attached to her complaint, inter alia, a copy of her Qualified Written Request/Validation of Debt, dated April 24, 2012, which cites specific provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) and the FDCPA.1 Defendant timely removed to this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, citing Plaintiff s invocation of FDCPA, RESPA, and the United States Constitution. On August 10, Defendant filed the pending (ECF No. 1). motion for more definite statement, asserting that, because of the vagueness of Plaintiff s pleadings, [it] is unable to decipher sufficient information from the [c]omplaint to comprehend what Plaintiff is claiming. (ECF No. 9-1, at 2). Nevertheless, Defendant was apparently able the to glean that complaint related to Plaintiff s Qualified Written Request/Validation of Debt, and attached the document that it allegedly transmitted to Plaintiff in response on or about May 4, 2012. was also injunctive able to relief, determine which it that argues 1 (ECF No. 9-2). Plaintiff is Defendant seeks unavailable in purely RESPA She additionally attached a document entitled Plaintiff Request for First and Second Admissions, which was dated May 15, 2012, well before she commenced the instant action. (ECF No. 4-2). The substance of this document, however, challenges the sufficiency of Defendant s initial response to the prior Qualified Written Request/Validation of Debt. 2 private actions. (ECF No. 9-1, at 5 (quoting Mullinax v. Radian Guaranty, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 311, 335 (M.D.N.C. 2002)). Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant s motion. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 12(e) provides, in relevant part: A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. As the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia explained in Frederick v. Koziol, 727 F.Supp. 1019, 1020 21 (E.D.Va. 1990): Such a motion is not a substitute for the discovery process, and where the information sought by the movant is available or properly sought through discovery, the motion should be denied. [Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F.Supp. 940, 949 (E.D.Cal.1981)]; Wheeler v. United States Postal Service, 120 F.R.D. 487, 488 (M.D.Pa. 1987). The motion for more definite statement is designed to strike at unintelligibility rather than simple want of detail, and the motion will be granted only when the complaint is so vague and ambiguous that the defendant cannot frame a responsive pleading. Scarbrough v. R Way Furniture Co., 105 F.R.D. 90, 91 (E.D.Wis. 1985); see Wilson v. United States, 585 F.Supp. 202, 205 (M.D.Pa. 1984); In re Arthur Treacher s 3 Franchisee Litigation, (E.D.Pa. 1981). 92 F.R.D. 398, 406 See also Khair v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 1:10cv410 (JCC), 2010 WL 2486430, at *2 (E.D.Va. June 14, 2010) (citing Frederick for the same proposition). The decision of whether to grant a motion for more definite statement is committed to the discretion of the district court. See Crawford El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 98 (1998). While Plaintiff s complaint is far from a model of clarity, it is not reasonably factual so be vague and expected allegations may to ambiguous prepare only be a that Defendant response. construed as cannot Indeed, raising the claims under the RESPA and FDCPA provisions identified in Plaintiff s Qualified Written Request/Validation of Debt. Under the RESPA, a servicer must investigate the matters addressed by a qualified written writing, either explaining account the of servicer, the or request by from correcting reasons for borrower providing is the a borrower any which error the correct and in servicer as information respond, the in request, believes the determined by the requested by the borrower or an explanation of why the information requested is unavailable or cannot be obtained by the servicer. § 2605(e)(2). 12 U.S.C. Pursuant to § 2605(f), [w]hoever fails to comply with [this provision] shall be liable to the borrower for . . . 4 any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure . . . [and] any additional damages, as the court may allow, in the case of a pattern or practice of noncompliance . . . in an amount not to exceed $1,000. Under the validation of debts provision of the FDCPA, a debt collector is required, within five days after initial communication with the consumer regarding collection of a debt, to send the consumer a written notice containing . . . a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector[.] 1692g(a)(3). 15 U.S.C. § Subsection (b) of the same rule provides that the debt collector, upon receipt of such notice from the consumer within the thirty-day window, must cease collection of the debt . . . until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Notably, the arguments advanced or alluded to by Defendant in its motion for more definite statement e.g., that injunctive relief is not available under the RESPA, that service of process has not been effected would appear appropriate in the context of a motion to dismiss. 5 to be Because Defendant failed to move for dismissal, however, the court may only deny its motion for more definite statement. Accordingly, it is this 9th day of November, 2012, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that: 1. The motion for more definite statement filed by Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. (ECF No. 9) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; 2. Defendant is directed to file either a motion to dismiss or an answer to Plaintiff s complaint within fourteen (14) days; and 3. Memorandum The clerk Opinion is and directed Order to to transmit counsel for copies of Defendants this and directly to Plaintiff. _________/s/________________ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 6

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.