Reid et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, No. 8:2016cv03717 - Document 24 (D. Md. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/11/2017. (c/m 8/11/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Reid et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC Doc. 24 l" FILED ~.S,. ~!g~ICT C!'U!:T l." IN TilE UNITED STATES ()JSTRICT COlmtT"Iv! !':AilYLA::J FOR TilE DISTRICT OF MARYLANI> SOl/them Dil'isiol/ ZUIl AUG I I P 2: 08 * ANGELE ROSE REID, et al., * Plaintiffs, .y._- --0- * v. Case No.: <;.111-J(,-37 I 7 * OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, * I>efendanl. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OI'INION Plainti ff Angele Rose Reid I ("Plaintifr' Ocwcn Loan Scrvicing. LLC ("DcfcndanC) Noriinda Hill. Maryland Avenue. (hon is Plaintiffs Emergcncy brings tbis I'm .Ie action against or "Reid") to quict title on thc rcal propcrty locatcd at 2074S (..the Propcny").2 Stay Motion to Dismiss ['orcclosure. nos Now pcnding bcli,rc thc Court ECF NO.4. and Dcfcndant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Fcd. R. Civ. 1'. 12(b}(6). ECF No. 12. i\ hearing is unnecessary. Delcndant"s See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2(16). For the following reasons. Motion to Dismiss is granted. and Plaintitrs Emergency Stay Motion is thus denicd as moot. I. BACKGROUNI> The Court derives the following facts Ii'om Plaintiffs Complaint. - records. and .judicial records from the Circuit Court I()J'Prince Geor!!e's District Court I()r the District of Maryland. ECF NO.2. public land Count\'. and the U.S. The Court may consult these documents without I The initial Complaint lists Cheryl R. Johnson as lead Plaintiff: however. 35 evident from the pleadings <Ind subsequent filings. Angclc Rose Reid is properly listed as lead Plainliff in this action. The Clerk shall correci the docket accordill!!I\'. 1 Plaintirr'\ {lrigi~;lly filed in the Circuit COllrt of Maryland f(.no Prince George's County' 011 Scptl..'mbcr 28. 2016. 50;!!/", ECF No.2. Defendants rcmoved the Action to this Court on Novembcr 15. 2016. Sel' ECF No. I. Dockets.Justia.com converting See Sec:\' o(SllIle For the Motion to Dismiss into onc li)r Summary Judgmcnt. Defelice \', 7i"imh/e N(fl'iglltioll Ltd. 484 F,3d 700. 705 (4th Cir. 2007) ("In revicwing thc dismissal of a complaint public rccord,"): under Rule 12(b)( 6). we may properly take judicial C%llia/PelllllllS, "the most frequent use of judicial rccords,") (internal citations Co, \', Coil. 887 F,2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that notice of asccrtainablc facts is in noticing thc contcnt of court omittcd), On October 26. 2006. thc Propcrty was convcycd R, Johnson, a Dccd of Trust ("thc Dced ofTrusn, Dced of Trust was assigned Securitized Certificates. via Warranty Deed from Rcid to Chcryl See ECF No, 12-3 at I:' To purchasc thc Property. Johnson obtaincd a purchasc money loan ("thc Loan") from Ncw Century Mortgage executed noticc of mattcrs of to Deutsche Asset Backed Receivablcs Series 2007-BRI Corporation lill' $403.750,00 See ECF No, 12-4 at 1-2, On June 29, 2015, thc Bank National Trust Company, LI.C Trust 2007-BR I. Mortgagc ("Deutsche Bank") at C/O Ocwcnl.oan proceedings Pass-Through Servicing I.LC See ECF Trustees 2015 ii)IIowing apparent dcfault on the Loan, See WIJUUIC \', Johllsoll. C AEF 15-26303 (Cir. Gcorge's ii)rec!osure as Trustce li)r No, 12-5 at I, Substitute Ct.l'rince initiated and Cty, Sept. 9. 2015) (thc "Forec!osure County. Bank filed suit against Rcid and Johnson in Scptember Action")," The Propcrty has traced a tortured history throughout 2011. Dcutsche against Johnson the Maryland courts, On .Iune 16. in the Circuit Court fill'Princc Deutsche Balik Natiollal Trust \'. Reid. CAEII-14694 (Cir. Ct.l'rince Gcorge's Gcorgc's Cty, Although the October 26. 2006 Warranty Deed appears to hear Reid"s signature. ECF No. 12-3 at 1. Reid has claimed throughout years of litigation that l'ither her signature was forged 011 this document. or that the com cyance was effectuated through fraud, See ECF No. 12-7 at 17 ~ 59; ECF No. 12-10 at I 1-12 ,,~ 59-61; ECF No, IXal 2 " 4. 3 ~ 10. 4 ~ 14. This theory has been implicitly. if I\ot expressly rejected by three dillerent COlIl1s. See EeF No. 12. 8 at I: EeF No. 12-9 at 3: EeF No. 12-11 at 9. The Court need not dctcnninati\'cly resolve this fnct for purposes of this Opinion. however. because Plaintiffs Complaint is subject to dismissal under principles of res judicata. I Sce Maryland Judiciary Case Search Results. http://casesearch.courts.state .l1ld .1Is/cascsearc h/i nq LJiry Dcta iIjis?casc I d =C A EF 1526303& loc= 65&dcta i1Loc=- PG V (last visited August I. 2(17). .t 2 June 22. 20 II) (the "First Lawsuit'.).; judgment that Reid had "no claim or reseissionary Bank's interest:' superior. and that "Oeutsehe right. title. and interest:' against Deutsche injunction against Johnson. and that "[Reid I has as a result of the purported complete. Reid filed counterclaims requesting that she "is the absolute owner of the property:' Cheryl R. Johnson interest/encumbrance/lien lOCI' No. 12-6 at 5. In response. Bank and cross-claims Deutsche Bank (as seeurcd party under the Deed of Trust) has for quiet title. In her Cross and Counter Complaint. declaration defendant interest in the Property affecting that ..the Deed of Trust is a valid and enforceable against the Property:' initio:' Deutsche Bank sought. among other things. a declaratory declaratory Reid specifically rcliefand an sought a that "any decd recorded by transfer of the property is void ab sale. and uninterrupted ownership and rights in the .. :. Eel' No. 12-7 at 23-24. property In an Order issued July 23. 2012. docketed on July 30. 2012. the Circuit Court fiJr Prince Georgc's County ratified the October 26. 2006 convcyanee Johnson. held that the Deed of Trust is''a valid and enfi,)rceable lien" against the Property. and of the Property from Reid to ordered Reid to vacate the Property within 15 days. lOCI"No. 12-8 at 1-2. Reid's counterclaims were dismisscd reconsideration. with prejudice. Id at 2. The Circuit Court denied Reid's requests tor and Reid appealed lOCI' No. 12-9 at 2. Reid presented the decision to the Maryland several questions Court erred by ratifying and confirming Property. opinion. SI!I! Court of Special Appeals. for review. including the conveyance. or by ordering '<;I!I! whether the Circuit Reid to vacate the id at 2-3. On June 4. 2014. the Court of Special Appeals issued a thirteen-page affirming the decision of the Circuit Court. SI!I! id at 3. 'The First Lawsuit is cited herein as ECF Nos. 12-6 (June 16.2011 Deutsche Ban~ Complaint): 12-7 (Scpl. 19. 20 I 1 Reid's Answer and Cross and Counter-Complaint), 12-8 (July 23. 2012 Order from Circuit Court fix Prince George's County): and 12-9 (June~. 20 I~ Opinion of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals). 3 On July 12. 2012. Reid tiled suit against New Century Mortgage Deutsche Bank. Johnson. (the "Second injunction that "plaintiff by Cheryl Johnson "plaintiff Lawsuit")." 19. Defendants enjoy undisturbed of the property:' of res judicata. PlaintiJrs claims before it were "essentially equivalent." that "any deed recorded is void ab initio:' 6. The Court closed the case with prejudice. and that Bank on involved the same parties:' and lOCI' No. 12-11 at 5. In its opinion. the Plaintiff to litigate her claims against Deutsche resolution an Plaintiff sought a the claims against Deutsche finding that ..the [the First Lawsuitj interfere with the state court's rcliefand and rights" in the Property. Id at 18- ownership moved to dismiss. The Court dismissed Court also noted that allowing declaratory transfer of the property sole and uninterrupted principles "unduly ownership Reid at *1 (D. Md. Dcc. ECF No. 12-10 at 18-21. Specilically. as a result of the purported has complete. 2012 WL 6562887. Plaintiff Reid again requested lor quiet title on the Property. declaration a/k/a and others in the U.S. District Court lor the District of Maryland. \'. Nell' Ceil/lilT MOl'/g Corp.. No. 8: 12-CY-02083-AW. 13.2(12) Corporation Bank would of what is. at bottom. a quiet title action:' It!. at Id at 9. On March 15. 2016. Reid initiated yet another action against New Century Mortgage a/k/a Deutsche Corporation George's Bank and Ocwen Loan Servicing in the Circuit Court lor Prince County. Reid \'. Nell' Cel1/llry MOl'/g Corp.. CAE 16-07557 (Cil'. Ct. Prince George's Cty. March 15.2(16) the Property. (the "Third LawsuiC.)7PlaintiITagain In that complaint. Complaint slIhjlldi"e. including 'authentic original unaltered PlaintilTmade that Defendants Promissory allegations petitioned the court to quiet title on nearly identical to the statements arc "not Iioider/hoider Note'" and "PlaintifTspeeilieally in her in Due Course of the challenges the deht "The Second Lawsuit is cited herein as ECF Nos. 12-10 (July 12. 2012 Complaint): 12-1 I (Dec. 13.2012 Opinion bv Judge Williams). '"The l"hird Lawsuit is cited herein as ECF Nos. 12-12 (Mar. 15.2016 PlaintifFs Action to Quiet Title); 12-13 (May 4. 2016 Order). . 4 instrument that givels] rise to any lien instrument:' COli/fill"'! lOCI'No. 12-12 at 1-5. \rilh ECF NO.2 at 1-2. On May 4.2016. the Circuit Court It)r Prince George's County granted Oc\\"en's and Deutsche Bank's Motion to Dismiss. and dismissed PlaintiJrs Complaint "ith prejudice. ECF No. 12-13. I'laintiffhas now Iiled the current action with this Court to quiet title against Oe\\"en Loan Servicing. See ECF No, 2. PlaintilTonee again claims that Defendants arc "not Holder/holder in Due Course of the 'authentie original unaltered Promissory Note .... and "I'lainti ff speci lically challenges the debt instrument that givels] rise to any lien instrument:' Id at 2. I'laintilTalso makes vague and eonclusory allegations that ..there is not a meeting of the minds as to the contract agreement:' that ..this is fraud by misrepresentation of a material I~\et."and proclaims that ..the contract is to be deemed void:' Id at 3. Defendant Oewen has moved to dismiss, ECF No. 12, Plaintiff liled an Opposition, ECF No. 18, Ilaving revie\\"ed the submissions. the aggregate of prior court records. and relevant authorities. the Court now grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Defendants may ..test the adequacy of a complaint by \\"ay of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6):' rrelich \'. .lied. Res IlIc.. 813 F. Supp. 2d 654. 660 (D, Md, 2011) (citing .. Gerll/lIlI \'. Fox. 267 F. App'x 231. 233 (4th Cir. 2008». Motions to dismiss Itlr f~lilureto state a claim do "not resolve contests surrounding the 1~lctS.he merits of a claim. or the applicability of t defenses:' I're/ich. 813 F. Supp. 2d at 660 (citing EdwlIrds \'. Cily'!t'Goldshoro. 178 F,3d 231. 243 (4th Cir. 1999). The court should not grant a motion to dismiss It)r I~\ilureto state a claim It))' relief unless "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations:' GE 1m'. I'ril'<lIe I'llicell/elll I'lIrlllers II \'. ['lIrker. 247 F.3d 543. 5 548 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing 11..1. In('. (1989», I'. Norlllll'eslel'l1 Bell Tel. Co.. 492 U.S. 229. 249-50) To ovel'come a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. a complaint claim for relief, Bell AI!. Corp. plausible I'. must allegc enough lilcts to state a T11'OIIlbl)'.550 U.S. 544. 570 (2007): Ashcl'llfi Iqbal. 556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009). A claim is plausible whcn ..thc plaintilTpleads that allows the Court to draw thc reasonable misconduct allegations the sufliciency in the complaint of the Plaintilfs as true and construes favorahle to the I'laintilT. See Albrighl COIllIll ofDa\'ids(J/1 '1'.1 0)'.. 407 of further tactual enhancement." claims. the Court accepts lilctual the lilctual allegations I'. elements of a cause of action. and hare assertions Nelllel ('he\'rolel. Ltd I'. Btl. of' must devoid ConslIIllemftclirs. COIll.In<'.. 591 F,3d (4th Cir. 2009). Fed, R. Civ. 1'. 8(a) further provides thaI "laJ pleading lhat states a entitled to relief:' the defendant I'. in the light mOSI \'. Oiil'('/'. 510 U.S. 266. 268 (1994): Lalllbelh claim 1<)1' relief must contain a short and plain statement Ellgle is liahle 1<11' thc F.3d 266. 268 (4th Cir. 2005), However. the complaint contain more than "legal conclusions. 250.255 lilctual content Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 678. alleged:' In evaluating inference that the defendant I'. Although "no technical of the claim showing that the pleader is I<mns of pleading are required. a complaint lair notice of what the plaintiffs must 'give claim is and the ground upon which it rests .... Uniled Slales. 736 F. Supp. 670. 671 (D. Md. 1(89). a/rd. 902 F.2d 28 (4th Cir. 19(0) (citing COllie)' \'. GibsOIl, 355 U.S. 41. 48 (1957)). The Court is not obligated unsupported legal allegations. Cir. 1(89). legal conclusions 286 (1986). or eonclusorv Black Fir(:tighlers 1'. - Re\'elle I'. to accept Charles CO//Illy COllllllissirlll('/'s. 882 F.2d 870. 873 (4th couched as lactual allegations. lactual alle~ations ~ Papa.\wI \'. Allain. 478 U ,S, 265. devoid of any relCrenee to actual events. Uniled - Hirsl. 604 F.2d 844. 847 (4th Cir. 1(79). 6 III. ANAL YSIS Thc doctrinc of rcs judicata. or claim preclusion. "bars a party li'OJllsuing on a claim that has already bcen 'Iitigated to a linaljudgment by that party or such party's privics and prccludcs the assertion by such parties of any legal theory. cause of action. or dcfense which could hm'c been asserted in that action:" Ohio Valley Enl'll. Coal. I', llracoma Caa/ Co.. 556 F.3d 177. 210 (4th Cir. 2009). Res judicata constitutes a ground for dismissal undcr Rulc 12(b)(6). /)a\'{/ni \'. Va. Del' 'I o/Tral1.lp .. 434 F.3d 712. 720 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing ,Indrell's \'. /)(/11'.201 FJd 521. 524 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding that dismissal on res judicata grounds is proper undcr Rule 12(b)(6) unless a disputed issue of material fact exists». /I. Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on res judicata is only appropriate. however. when the basis for res judicata "c1early appears on the face of the complaint:' Thellne \'. U.S'. lJank. N.II.. No. MJG-13-1015, 2013 WL 5934114. at *3 (f).Md. Nov. I. 2013) (quoting Richmond. Fredericks/JlIIX & P%mac R.R. Co, I'. ForsI,4 FJd 244. 250 (4th Cir. 1993)). In order fiJr res judicata to bar a claim. three clements must bc present: (I) the prcsent parties are the samc or in privity with the parties in the earlier disputc: (2) the earlier dispute was based upon the same causc of action. and (3) there has been a tinaljudgment on the mcrits. See Ohio Va//ey. 556 F.3d at 210 (intcrnal citations omitted): acmrd IInl1e ,Inll/de/ COlln/y lJd. of Edllc. \'. NOITille. 887 1I..2d 1029. 1037 (Md. 20(5): !l The applicable law for purposes of res judicata is the law of the tribunal in which the prior judgment was entered. See Letirh~~e Ml/l/hell's. No. eIY.A. ELH-II-3499, 2012 WL 1377060. at *4. n.7 (D, Md, Apr. 18.2012) (citing \'. ( AIigra \'. Warrell Cify Sell. Disi. /1£1. !lEduc:.. 465 U.S. 75. 8' (1984)) (applying lcderal law regarding res judicata). \\'hcn a federal c01ll1litigant asserts rcsjudicata based on a state court judgment. "Ithel federal court must give to [the) state court judgment the same preclusivc eHect as \\'ould be given that judgment under the law oftht: State in which the judgment was rendered'" ,\/igra. 465 U.S. at 81 (1984). Here. Reid has prior suits in both state coul1 <lnd f'Cderalcoun. Because the elements for claim preclusion under Maryland law and federal law are essentially equivalent. the diffcrence 11<15 no bearing hcrc. 7 With respect to the lirst clement. it is evident Ihll11 thc face of the Complaint court records that Plaintiff Reid was a party to all three Lawsuits. and Delendant and prior Ocwen was a party to the Third Lawsuit and in privity with Deutsche Bank. who was a party to all three Lawsuits. "Privity in thc res judicata involvcs a person so identilied Inc .. 85 F. Supp. 2d 566. 572-73 (D. Md. 2000). l3ecause Ocwen and Deutsche Bank share a of interest with respect to the Property. they arc in privity See. e.g.. roung \'. Dilech Fill.. LLC'. No. CV PX 16-3986.2017 July 19.2017) judicata (finding noteholder. purposes): Substitute Trustees. I()f res judicata WL 3066198. He. Sen's .. /Ilc .• No. CIV.A. WMN-13-3899. at *6 (D. Md. NO.1: 17-CV -77 (.ICCITCB). WL 1234287. at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 4. 2017) (noting that "loan scrvicersare in privity with the lender on whose behal(they purposes. and loan scrviccr were in privity Illr res Jloddemo \'. Onrell 1.0011 Servicillg. (finding "holder or servieers in interest the same legal right." II llyol1\rll/oku r. Fleel '\/orlgoge Group. with another that he represents mutuality sensc gcnerally arc servicing 2014 WL 4272022. regularly 2017 found to bc thc loan"): Oikelllus \'. Fit!. ,I/ong. at *1 (D. Md. Aug. 28. 2(14) of the Note and Deed of TrusC to bc in privity with substitute trustees). In regards to the second element. "same cause of action:' the plaintiff in the second suit is proceeding first suit:' transaction the Court "need not lind that on the same legal theory Ishel ... advanced in the Ohio Volley. 556 F.3d at 210. So long as "the second suit arises out of the same or series of transactions have preclusive effect:' as the claim resolved by the prior judgment. It!. (intemal quotations omitted): lJi/hrough. 525 A.2d 232. 238 (Md. 1987) (approving claim preclusion): the lirst suit will occord Kenl Oy. 1Jt!.o(Educ. \'. use of the "transaction" test to determine see o/so Boyd \'. BOIrell. 806 A.2d 314. 325 (Md. CI. Spec. ApI'. 20(2) (noting that "[uJnder the transaction test. a 'claim' includes all rights of the plaintilTto 8 remedies against the defcndant transactions. with respect to all or any part ofthc transaction, or scries of connccted out of which the claim arosc:} Here. not only doe~ Plaintiffs and Third Lawsuits. suit arisc out ofthc hcr theory and most ofhcr allegations same transaction as the First. Sccond, appear to bc identical as wcll. In evcry suit. Plaintiff has claimed that shc is thc rightful owncr ofthc 2305 Norlinda /\\"cnuc Propcrty. and that thc Dced of Trust is null and void, Plaintiffs Lawsuit request a declaration and injunction Property, and asscrts that the Dccd is void, Second Lawsuit again scck dcclaratory Countcrclaims f()r quict title on thc 2305 Norlinda A vcnue See ECl' No. 12-7 at 23-24. PlaintiJrs and injunctive Claims in thc relief that she enjoy complctc of the 2305 Norlinda Avenue Property. and that any Deed recordcd No, 12-10 at 18-19, PlaintiJrs in thc First owncrship by Johnson to bc void. ECF Third Lawsuit mirrors the rcqucst "to quict titlc" that shc makes now. ECF No, 12-12 at 1. There can be no dispute that the suit at issuc ariscs out of thc same transaction as prior suits. and is indeed equivalcnt Finally. thcrc has been a final judgment prior adjudication accorded at !o he .I'l/tlici('/1!~)'.firlll 10 he * 5 (D, (i/"l{\'e.l' ". Ol1e /Ve.l'! Balik. f~)B. No. PWG-14-1995, Md, May 20. 2015). atfd .I'I/h 110111(iJ"({\'e.l' )'. Olle,re.l'! .. /Jal1k. I'X/J, 788 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing Morgal1 ". Morgal1. 68 Md. ApI'. 85 (Md. Ct. Spec, ApI', 1986)) (emphasis dismissal includes any based on factors such as whcthcr thc partics wcre heard in thc issue and whcther the decision was appealable:' 653 l'. App'x on thc merits ... , l'jinaljudgment of an issue in another action thaI is delerlllilled cOI1e1I/.I'ire etkcl. 2015 WL 2452418. to thc suits raised and litigated bC!l)re, in .\forgal1). "other than a dismissal Unlcss thc court speeilies IlH lack of jurisdiction. a party under Rulc 19. operatcs as an adjudication otherwisc in its ordcr, any \l)l' impropcr vcnuc. or lor I~lilurc to join upon thc merits:' Fmllk r. /lollle Delwl. U.S.A.. Il1c .. 481 1', Supp. 2d 439. 442 (D. Md. 2007) (citing Fcd. R. Civ. P. 41 (b)). Morcovcr. 9 "indisputably. under Maryland law. a dismissal 'with prejudice' qualilies as an adjudication 'on the merits .... Church 1'. ,\fmTlal1d. 180 F. Supp. 2d 708. 748 (D. Md.). affd. 53 F. App'x 673 (4th Cir. 2(02) (citing IVoodd)' \'. Woodd)'. 270 Md. 23 (1973». In Reid's case. the Circuit Court I()r Prince Georgc's County dismissed hcr countcrclaims in thc First Lawsuit with prejudice. ECF No. 12-8 at 2. Thc Maryland Court of Special Appcals issued a writtcn opinion and aftinned thc decision ofthc Circuit Court. ECF No. 12-9 at 3. In the Second Lawsuit. thc U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland also considcrcd PlaintiJrs complaint. issued a written opinion. and dismissed PlaintiJrs claims with prejudice. ECF No. 12II at 9-10. In the Third Lawsuit. the Circuit Court I(l[ Prince Gcorgc's County again dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudicc. ECF No. 12-13 at I. Accordingly. there has bcen a Iinal judgment on the merits with respect to Reid's claims regarding the Property. For these rcasons. the instant Complaint must be dismissed on grounds of res judicata. Even ifnot barred by res judicata. Plaintitrs Complaint would be dismisscd fiJr failure to state a claim. Although a Complaint need not contain detailed allegations. the tacts allegcd must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. as "courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a tactual allcgation'" Bell All. Corp. 1'. TII'O/lIhl)'. 550 U.S. 544. 555 (2007). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). a pleading which sets t(mh a claim for relief shall contain "a short and plain statemcnt of the claim showing that the pleadcr is entitled to relieC" and each "allcgation must be simple. concise. and dircct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)( I). "Thrcadbare recitals of the c1emcnts ofa cause of action. supported by mere statements. do not sufticc'" Ashcro/i \'. l'1hal. 556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009) (citing Tlrol1lh~\'. 550 U.S. at 555). Whilc pro se complaints are to be construcd liberally. "[pjrinciples requiring generous construction ... arc not. however. without limits ... [and thc Court] cannot be expected to construct full blown 10 claims trom sentence fragments:' Bel/udell!'. Cil)' ofHl/lI1pIOI1. 775 F.2d 1274. 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). In addition to being barred by res judicata. Plaintitr s Complaint is confusing. vague. and conclusory. Her Opposition does nothing to eure the pleading deficiencies of the Complaint. nor does it respond to Defendant's arguments in the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffthercli)re fails to comply with Rule 8(a). and her Complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. lOCI'No. 12. is granted. and PlaintitTs Emergency Stay Motion. lOCI'NO.4. is denied as moot. A separate Order follows. Date: August {( &~- . 20 17 GEORGE .I. HAZEL United States District Judge II
]]>
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.
