CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1021-JWD-EWD
ALVIN NEIL SATTERFEAL, ET AL. v. LOANCARE, LLC, ET AL.
JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTER REGION OF LOUISIANA
ORDER and RULING
Pending prior to the Court could be the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”). (Doc. 10). Plaintiffs Alvin Neil Satterfeal payday loans Mississippi and Mary Becnel Satterfeal (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) oppose the motion. (Doc. 22). Wells Fargo has filed a reply brief to get its motion. (Doc. 23). Oral argument just isn’t necessary. The facts alleged, and the applicable law, and for the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc after careful consideration of the parties’ arguments. 10) is issued.
Wells Fargo represents it is improperly designated in this lawsuit as “Wells Fargo home loan,” which “no more exists as a different and separate appropriate entity.” (Doc. 10 at 1). The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to mirror this noticeable change in the docket sheet.
We. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 22, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Temporary, Preliminary, and Permanent Injunction and Damages when you look at the Louisiana Judicial that is 19th District when it comes to Parish of East Baton Rouge. (Doc. 1-1). Wells Fargo subsequently eliminated the suit to the Court on November 16, 2018. (Doc. 1). The Petition named Wells Fargo, LoanCare, LLC (“LoanCare”), and Tharpe Family Insurance, LLC (“Tharpe”) as defendants.
The plaintiffs very own “six or seven” leasing properties in Baker, Louisiana, which are insured through Tharpe Family Insurance. (Doc. 1-1 at 4). Three of those properties were mortgaged through Wells Fargo and/or LoanCare (collectively, “the lenders”). (Id.). The insurance premiums for the three mortgaged properties had been expected to be compensated through lenders’ escrow departments. (Id.). Particularly, Tharpe, while the plaintiffs’ representative, was to bill LoanCare and/or Wells Fargo for premiums for the mortgaged properties. (Id.). The premiums were become given out of this plaintiffs’ LoanCare and/or Wells Fargo escrow records. (Id.). Plaintiffs allege that Tharpe wrongly billed lenders for many regarding the properties and not just those that had been susceptible to home loan. (Id.). They declare that just the three properties susceptible to home loan must have been contained in the billing for premiums. (Id.). Plaintiffs further allege that, “[r]ather than remit payment just for the serviced mortgaged properties held by [the lenders], the complete premium bill addressing all six or seven properties ended up being paid [by the lenders] on a few occasions and/or ended up being utilized to execute yearly escrow calculations on the [accounts regarding the three mortgaged properties].” (Id. at 4-5). The plaintiffs assert that this miscalculation “more than doubled” the payments that are monthly service your debt on “each of this three loans.” (Id.).
Plaintiffs contend them associated with errors and desired to really have the reports corrected,” but that the defendants “made exactly the same errors over repeatedly and failed or declined to do proper escrow account analyses in the loans. which they over and over contacted the defendants “to advise” (Doc. 1-1 at 5). Plaintiffs concede that the defendants acknowledged the mistakes and delivered a reimbursement using one event. (Id.). As a consequence of the duplicated miscalculations, the plaintiffs stopped remitting loan repayments in addition to loans later went into standard. (Id.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In governing for a movement to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) associated with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must accept all well-pled factual allegations within the problem as real and construe them into the light many favorable to your plaintiff. Gonzales v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009). That is plausible on its face. to beat a movement to dismiss, a problem must include “enough facts to mention a claim to relief” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is “plausible on its face” if “the plaintiff pleads content that is factual enables the court to attract the reasonable inference that the defendant is likely for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The complaint “requires a lot more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation associated with the components of a factor in action will likely not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations will not need to be detailed, but “must be adequate to increase a right to relief over the speculative degree,” id., and “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” aren’t sufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The Petition will not clearly delineate each one of the plaintiffs’ claims, differentiate between each defendant’s conduct, nor split each claim into its cause that is own of. Thus, the Petition violates the pleading criteria founded by Rules 8 and 10 regarding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and tasks both the defendants and also this Court with sorting with an amalgamation of possible claims “‘interwoven in a haphazard fashion.'” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 760 F.2d 1520, 1544 n.14 (11th Cir. 1985)). In Weiland, the Eleventh Circuit identified four forms of “shotgun pleadings”–imprecise complaints that fail “to provide the defendants notice that is adequate of claims against them additionally the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.
right Here, the Petition commits at least two shotgun pleading “sins”вЂ”failing to split up into different counts each reason for action and “asserting multiple claims against numerous defendants without specifying which associated with defendants have the effect of which functions or omissions, or which for the defendants the claim is brought against.” Id. However, in line with the known facts alleged in addition to known as defendants, the Court construes the Petition as containing claims against Tharpe, LoanCare, and Wells Fargo under both federal and state legislation. For listed here reasons, all such claims are at the mercy of dismissal.