Kelton et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, No. 4:2014cv00991 - Document 6 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order...all claims and actions brought by plaintiffs and intervenor against deft are dismissed with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 12/16/2014) (wrb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kelton et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Doc. 6 ..-a.w. . ''-;'J l î 'vfl(j .v,-.. f --**- ' VVfs' .. r ' *'h)UV' .' k ' V 4 C....w.o..'-i 1Yi' -.' *''.N'' 1 b '' S J f i . 1 No i-,,*x r' ') c. t r'' XAS 3 k sn ' w c ' tLt- ï o: :1-r l-12 ! - : ' 2 (7(---J..-, 1- r,:-ïr1-j- i.kx >' -' ç. ) . . IN THE UNITED STATES D ISTRIC COUR NORT HERN DISTRICT OF TE S FORT WORTH DIVISION RRNDALL KELTON , ET AL ., . .' .. IEQ 16 B 1 't' ' . -9 .. .. . CLERK ,U. DI S. STRI COURT CT .' . ' . :. ..By î, 4 .. j j ppu' y 1 ' ' j k Plaintiffs, VS . NO . 4 :l4-CV -991-A DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY , Defendant . MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER The above -captioned action is before the court by a notice of removal filed by defendant , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company , as Trustee in Trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WL3 Asset-Backed Certificates , Series 2006WL3 . Plaintiffs, Randall Kelton ('Kelton' and David Wethy 1 p s ('Wethy'),2 initiated this action on April 1, 2014, in the ' ' District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 352nd Judicial District. On April 25, 2014, Larry Stillwell (1Stil1Well') filed a petition ' ' in intervention . Having carefully examined the notice of removal and the volum inous state court papers attached thereto , the court concludes that Wethy ' claims are barred by the doctrine of res s ' e endanti ca ed i t notceofr D f ndi t n he i emovalt ti wasi r ty na ed i t sat cour ha t ncor ec l m n he t e t pl ngsas ' eadi ' s he Bank N a i Tr tCom pa ' Deut c tonal us nyv' zrhi i nott fr ts acton fl by W et . Thecourq i dim isi a pr ouscaseW e hy ' ss he is uch i ied hy n s s ng evi t fl not hi t be a ds i fl offi ous lws t m a ofwhih havebee dimi s f ied, ed m o leral ier rvol a uis, ny c n s s ed or f i ous s orf sm ia r ons. Jul 5,201 Or ri Cas Numbe 4: 3- - 1 A,Dkt No.1 rvol nes , or i lr eas ' y ' 3 de n e r 1 CV 3 8. 8. Dockets.Justia.com judicata, Kelton and Stillwell have failed to show that either has standing to pursue the claims and causes of action asserted in their state court p leadings, and that th is action should be dismissed in its entirety . 1. , Nature of the Claims Asserted - In their state court pleadings, Kelton and Wethy alleged that on October 18, 2005, an individual named Gary Jennings ( nlenningsz), who is not a party to this action, Was granted a ' r warranty deed as to certain property located at 10733 Lipan Trail in Fort Worth, Texas. The same day, Jennings signed a purchase loan agreement and a deed of trust to secure the payment of his obligations towards the purchase of the Lipan Trail property . Although the allegations in the state court pleadings appear in large part to be nonsensical and difficult to discern , Kelton and Wethy apparently contend that the deed of trust is void and unenforceable , and that any purported assignment thereof is fraudulent, void , and of no effect . Kelton and Wethy seek to quiet title to the property by removal of the substitute trustee 's deed . 2 ' Stillwell 's petition in intervention alleged that on December l5, 2013,3 following the foreclosure of his own home , Stillwell signed a two year lease agreement w ith Wethy to rent the property on Lipan Trail. However, unbekpownst to him, defendant purchased the property at a foreclosure sale the same day . In February 2014 , follow ing defendant 's successful forcible entry and detainer proceeding , defendant gave Stillwell twentyfour hours ' notice to vacate the property . Analvsis A. Wethy 's Claims are Barred By Res Judicata Res judicata is generally considered an affirmative defense. Carbonell v . La . Dep l of Health & zuman Res ., t F .2d 185, 189 ( 5th Cir . 1985). However, the court may sua sponte dismiss an action on res judicata grounds when the elements of the defense are apparent on the face of the pleadings . Kansa Reinsurance Co . v Conqressional Mortq. Corp . of Tek ., 20 F.3d 1362, 1366 ( 5th Cir. 1994). I making s n uch a ruli ng, the court ma take judicial y notice of the record in a prior related proceeding . Ariz . v . Cal., 530 U . . 392, 412 ( S 2000). 3 pe ii i i er i i cat t sdat i i D e The tton n nt venton ndi es hi e s n cember201 . Thi i obvi l a 4 ss ousy t ypogr cale r aphi r or. Under res judicata, a prior judgment bars a subsequent judgment when (1) the parties are identical or in privity; ( 2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdi ction; t prior action' he was concl uded by a ' . final judgment on the merits; and ( the same claim or cause of 4) action was involved in b0th actions. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v . Sinqh, 428 F. 559, 57l ( 3d 5th Cir. 2005). The doctrine precludes the relitigation of claims which have been fully adjudicated or aris from the sa s e me ubject matter, and that co uld have been litigated in the prior action . Nilsen v . Citv of Moss Point, 70l F. 556, 560 ( 2d 5th Cir. 1983). In determining whether the same claims ôr causes of action are brought, the Fifth Circuit has adopted the transactional test , in which all claims arising from a 'common nucleus of operative facts' and could have been brought in the first ' la wsuit, are barred by res j udic ata. Proc te/ & Gamble Co. V. Amway Corp., 376 F. 496, 499 ( 3d 5th Cir. 2004) In Nilsen , the court explained: % I)t is black-letter laW that res judicata, by '( contrast to narrower doctrines of issue preclusion, bars all claims that were or could have been advanced in support of the cause of action on the occasion of its former adjudication not merely those that were adjudicated.' Nilson, 701 F. at 560 ' 2d ( emphasis in original) See also Matter Qf Howe, 913 F . 1138, 2d 4 1144 ( 5th Cir. 1990) ('( ' TJhe critical issue is not the relief requested or the theory asserted but whether plaintiff bases the two actions on the same nucleus of operative facts.' . s On August 23, 2013, defendant and another entity initiated Civil Case No . 4 : l3-CV-697-A by filing a notice of removal of Wethy's state court petition filed in the District Court of Tarrant County , Texas, 342nd Judicial District . The state court 4 ; ' . pleadings concerned the same property on Lipan Trail that is the subject of the instant action. In the state court petition in Case Number 4 :l3-CV -697- , Wethy complained about the validity of A the deed of trust, alleged that any assignmeht of the deed of trust was void, and challenged defendant 's right to pursue foreclosure proceedings against the property . On August 30, 2013, the court dismissed the action in its entirety because Wethy lacked standing to pursue t claims auai he nst defendant. In the instant action , Wethy again complained about the note and deed of trust executed to secure the purchase of the Lipan Trail property . Wethy maintained that those documents are void and unenforcea ble a that any pur nd ported assk gnments of those documents were without authorization and were also void . 4'ec urtke j iiln ieo tee tr rc r ofCi lCaeNu r4:3- 6 'h o ta s udca otc f h nie e od vi s mbe 1 CV-97A. I Considering all of the foregoing, it is apparent that the elements of res judicata apply to bar Wethy' claims in the s instant action . Wethy and defendant were parties to Case Number 4: 13-CV-697-A and are parties here. The prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits,s issued by the undersigned, a court of competent jurisdiction. All of the claims and causes of action in 50th actions arise from the same nucleus of operative facts concerning the property on Lipan Trail . All of the required elements hav ing been met , the court concludes that res judicata bars Wethy 's claims in the instant action . 6 B. Kelton Lacks Standinq Article III of the United States Constitution lim its the judicial power of federal courts to 'Cases' or 'Controversies.' ' ' ' ' U.S. Const. art. 111, 5 2, cl. 1. constitutlonal standing i mplicates the court' jurisdiction to consider an acti bef s on ore See Allen v. Wriqht, 468 U.S. 737, 750 ( 1984). Hence, a federal court has an independent duty , at any point in a proceeding, to determine its jurisdiction over an action, 5 dim i alf lck ofsandi , s ast dim i ali Cas Number4: 3- - A,i a A s ss or a t ng uch he s ss n e 1 CV 697- s fnaj dg n ont meisf pupo e o rsj c t.Se Co rv. rhyOiUSA.I .71 F.d i lu me t he rt or r s s f e udiaa e me Mup l nc, 8 3 460 469( t Ci. 3 . , 5h r 201 ) Yve irs u ct ddn tba Weh scli ,te wo db dimisdfrlc ofsa ng, n f e j diaa i o r ty' ams h y ul e s se o a k tndi f t r onsasdicuss d i s i I. bel or he eas s e n ecton IB. ow. including whether a party has standing . Ruhqras AG v . Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 ( 1999) The doctrine of standing seeks to ensure that a plaintiff has a sufficient stake in the controversy to merit his or her being the proper party to litigate it . Standing in any federal court is a federal question not dependent on a party 's prior standing in state court. Phillips Petroleum Co . v. Shutts, 472 U . 797, 804 ( S. 1985). Constitutional standing under Article III has three elements : uinjury in fact'; ' conduct; and the plaintiff must have suffered an traceable to the defendant 's alleged that likely would be redressed by a favorable decision. Ludan v . Defenders of Wildlife, 5Q4 U .S. 555, 560-561 ( 1992)7 St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v . Labuzan, 579 F. 533, 3d 539 ( 5th Cir. 2009). In the instant action, the state court pleadings fail to pass even the first element needed to show standing : nothing t herei alle n ges that Kelton has suff ered any i ury. This action nj concerns the note and deed of trust securing the purchase by Jennings of property located at 10733 Lipan Trail , Fort Worth , Texas, and the purportedly void or invalid assignments concerning the property that led to a purported wrongful foreclosure . Kelton in the state court pleadings alleged that on October 2005, Jennings was granted a warranty deed as to the property on Lipan Trail, and that he signed a note and deed of trust in conjunction with the purchase of that property. All of the documents pertaining to the Lipan Trail that are attached to the state court pleadings identify Jennings as the owner of the property . However, as far as the court can tell, nothing in the state court papers mentions Kelton or purports to grant him any interest in the property located at 10733 Lipan Trail. ; To summarize, nothing in the petition can be construed as show ing that Kelton has any interest in the property at issue , and so he cannot establish that he has suffered any injury in fact . Lacking that element, Kelton is similarly unable to show causation or that he has an injury that is redressable by the court . Hence , Kelton cannot establish that he has standing to bring the instant action. Luqan, 504 U.S. at 560-561. C. Stillwell Lacks Standinq Similarly , Stillwell's only interest in 'the property was as a tenant. stillwell alleged that he received notice to vacate the premises in February 2014. The thirty-six page petition in X hesaec u t p r i lde ado ume ttte S miedPo ro Ato ne 'wheen t t o r pa e s ncu d c n ild ti t we f tr y, ' ri J ngspur st a ntW et ashi Eator i f ' i r dst a1 l mater pe t ni t ' enni port o ppoi hy s t t ney-n-act' n egar o l egal t s rai ng o t Li Tr lpr rt Thi docum ent however doesnotaut i W et t fl l pa son he pan ai ope y. s , , horze hy o ie egal per J nni ' be l o r p e e tJ n ng i ac ur o lw.Se W e e v. r a 5 F.d 511 51 ( t e ngss haf r e r s n e ni s n o t f a e b r Gaz , 70 2 , 4 5h Ci.1 )( l n t we o atr y'd sn te il pli ift e a ei un utorz dp a tc o r 978 hodig t r f to ne ' oe o ntte antf o ng g n a h ie r cie f po l on behal ofot pl ntf sby pr parng l paper flng pettonsa bref ,and gene aly a i aw f her ai if e i egal s, ii ii nd i s r l ctng a at ne i vi a inofsaea df dea p o so ) I a e ntt ep rofa t n ydo no s tor y n olto tt n e r l r viins. n ny ve , h owe tor e es t menton Kelon. i t 8 intervention appears in its entirety to challenge the various assignments of the note and deed of trust pertaining to the property on Lipan Trail . Indeed , it appears that the only relief Stillwell seeks is a declaration that the substitute trustee's deed , signed December l5 , 2013 , showing the purchase by defendant of the Lipan Trail property , is void . Absent from the petition , however, is any authority whereby Stillwell yay raise such a challenge or obtain such relief. And although Stillwell complains that the eviction proceeding interfered with his rental agreement, foreclosure of the property by defendant effectively terminated that lease. See, e. ., ICM Mortg . Corp . v . Jacob, 902 q S. . 527, 530 ( . App .--E1 Paso 1994, writ denied). W 2d Tex Stillwell has failed to show any interest in the subject property for which he may bring the claims and causes of action asserted in the petition in intervention. ' 111 . Order Therefore , The court ORDERS that all claims and causes of action brought by plaintiffs, Kelton and Wèthy, and intervenor, Stillwell , against defendant , Deutsche Bank National Trust 8!a tont po e wihsa nga dr j diaa t c r,h vigrviwe alo tesae 11 ddii o rblms t tndi n es u ct,he ou t a n e e d l f h tt cour pl ngs i i i t belevet dim i alw oul alo be wa r e f f l eofW e hy, t eadi , s nclned o i hat s ss d s r ant d or aiur t Kelon,orStlwel t sat any cl m f r i . t il l o t e ai or elef , Company , as Trustee in Trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WL3 A sset-Backed Certificates , Series 2GQ6-WL3 , be , and are hereby , dismissed with prejudice. z, 2 . . ,, ' SIGNED December l6, 20l4 @ r , # - ' ' -' Z /, #F r , -, .ze e' . c' zr.. . z d ?z ,'..' zr z .> .. z. . . /* 4 r .z z. z .. , f . z z ' a z y ' /' JO CBRYD UA i ed States District t . . . 10 o z ,. ' .' z . e , .# ' . udge
]]>
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.
