Brown et al v. Wells Fargo Bank et al, No. 3:2021cv02998 - Document 200 (N.D. Tex. 2023)

Court Description: Order Accepting 196 Findings and Recommendations re: 171 MOTION to Dismiss [Second] Amended Complaint and Brief in Support. The court grants the Motion to Dismiss, and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Citigroup, Inc. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 1/18/2023) (ndt)

Download PDF
Brown et al v. Wells Fargo Bank et al Doc. 200 Case 3:21-cv-02998-L-BT Document 200 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 2416 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION THOMAS G. BROWN and ELLA H. BROWN, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD CROW, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-02998-L-BT § § § ORDER On December 22, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford entered the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 196), recommending that the court grant Defendant Citigroup, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”) (Doc. 171), and dismiss with prejudice all claims brought by Plaintiffs Thomas and Edna Brown (“Plaintiffs”) against Citigroup. The Report recommended dismissal because Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege facts to support any plausible action against Citigroup or, as Plaintiffs argue, Ameriquest as Citigroup’s successor in interest. Doc. 196 at 5-6. Further, Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts showing that Citigroup acted under color of state law to deprive them of any constitutional rights. Id. at 6. Plaintiffs’ bare allegations of conspiracy between local governments and private actors is insufficient to state a claims for constitutional deprivation, and as such, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at 7. Plaintiffs did not file objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to allow the court to reasonably infer that Order – Page 1 Case 3:21-cv-02998-L-BT Document 200 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2417 Citigroup violated their constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court grants the Motion to Dismiss, and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Citigroup, Inc. Finally, as the court has previously addressed in numerous orders in this case, the court determines that dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate. The provision of Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that states “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires” is not without limitation. The decision to allow amendment of a party’s pleadings is within the sound discretion of the district court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment of the pleadings, a court considers the following: “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The court has already granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their claims twice (Docs. 100, 161), and warned them that no further amendments would be allowed. Doc. 100 at 2. Plaintiffs have had two opportunities to bring sufficient factual allegations to state a claim against Defendant Citigroup and have failed to do so. Further, the court agrees with the Report that Plaintiffs have stated their best case. Id. Further opportunities to amend their claims as to Citigroup would be an inefficient use of the parties’ and the court’s resources and cause unnecessary and undue delay. Finally, Plaintiffs failed to object to the Report’s recommendation of dismissal, despite their earlier objections to other reports from the magistrate judge similarly recommending dismissal. Plaintiffs have not sought leave to amend, and the court will not sua sponte grant it here. For these reasons, the court will not allow Plaintiffs a further opportunity to amend their pleadings regarding their claims against Citigroup. Order – Page 2 Case 3:21-cv-02998-L-BT Document 200 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 2418 It is so ordered this 18th day of January, 2023. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order – Page 3
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.