Higgs v. Castle & Cooke Mortgage et al, No. 1:2010cv00180 - Document 16 (D. Utah 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss ; denying as Moot 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 3/22/2011. (las)
Download PDF
Higgs v. Castle & Cooke Mortgage et al Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION STEVEN D. HIGGS, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS vs. CASTLE & COOK MORTGAGE, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.; et al. Case No. 2:10-cv-180 TS Defendants. This matter is before the Court on a number of pending motions, including: a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, ReconTrust Company N.A. ( ReconTrust ) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ( MERS ); a Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff to dismiss Defendant Castle & Cooke Mortgage; and a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff. The Court notes that Plaintiff s Complaint is identical, save the substitution of the respective parties names, to a Complaint the Court previously dismissed for failure to state a 1 Dockets.Justia.com claim.1 In fact, Plaintiff s opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss is identical to the Wareing Plaintiffs opposition to the Wareing Defendants motion to dismiss.2 As the Court can find no meaningful distinction between Plaintiff s Complaint and the one rejected in Wareing, and as Plaintiff has brought forth no argument to suggest that the Court s reasoning in Wareing was in error, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for the reasons set forth in Wareing. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, ReconTrust Company N.A. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 4) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Castle & Cooke Mortgage, LLC (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 11) is DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith. DATED March 22, 2011. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 1 See Wareing v. Meridias Capital, Case No. 10-CV-1065 (Mar. 17, 2011). 2 Compare Docket No. 10 with Wareing, Case No. 10-CV-1065 (Docket No. 12). 2