“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
How later courts described this case
- “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
The document below is hereby signed. gente,
Signed: September 29, 2020 ice *
Y,
M alll: □
Oy, TOF a
htt. Tins La oY
ae
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re )
)
JEANNIE QUINTEROS ) Case No. 19-00195
) (Chapter 7)
Debtor. )
)
)
JEANNIE QUINTEROS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Vv. ) Adversary Proceeding No.
) 19-10013
CAPITAL VENTURES )
INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al., ) Not for publication in
) West’s Bankruptcy Reporter.
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION OF MADISON
MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
Madison Management Services LLC has filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by the plaintiff, Jeannie
Quinteros. Quinteros has not filed an opposition to the motion
to dismiss. I agree with Madison’s observations:
The Amended Complaint remains laborious, repetitive,
general, and conclusory. Defendant has not been provided
fair notice with a short plain statement of the claims
against Defendant, and a showing that Plaintiff is
entitled to relief against Defendant.
The motion then observes that the fact is, Quinteros has no
grounds to assert a proper claim against Madison:
The subject loan was boarded with Defendant on December
15, 2014, and Defendant was merely the servicer of the
subject loan until September 12, 2017, and then Defendant
released the loan back to the Lender. The Lender, or
their counsel, drafted the loan modification at issue,
and undertook the foreclosure actions. Defendant had no
involvement with the subject loan other than sending
statements, collecting the reinstatement, paying the
taxes due at the time, and forwarding all communications
to the Lender and their counsel. Defendant is no longer
servicing the loan.
Although Madison has not moved for summary judgment to establish
this limited role, Quinteros appears to have decided in light of
Madison’s representations to not oppose Madison’s motion to
dismiss. I will grant Madison’s motion as unopposed.
In any event, Madison is correct that the Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Like
the original complaint, the Amended Complaint fails to meet the
pleading standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made
applicable by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and
related case law and ought to be dismissed. I will not repeat
here the recitation of those pleading standards set forth in the
Memorandum Decision and Order re Motions to Dismiss dated October
21, 2019, and entered on October 22, 2019. Despite being warned
regarding those pleading requirements, Quinteros once again has
fallen woefully short of complying with those requirements.
2
Quinteros has made conclusory allegations in her Amended
Complaint of wrongdoing by Madison that do not pass muster under
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 668 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). She alleges (¶ 18)
that “there has been an illegal, fraudulent and willful
oppressive commencement of foreclosure of Plaintiff/debtor's real
property by . . . Madison . . .;” alleges (¶ 23) that Madison “is
responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages to
Plaintiff so alleged and that such injuries and damages were
proximately caused by” Madison; alleges (¶ 24) that Madison
“engaged in instituting Real Estate Shell Companies Scheme to
Defraud Home owners out of their Homes in the State of Florida;”
alleges (¶ 31) that on January 12, 2015, Madison and other
defendants “falsely represented to the Debtor that they are the
holder of Debtor's Note and Mortgage in due course;” alleges
(¶ 32) that Madison “fraudulently induced the Debtor to execute a
written loan modification agreement with Defendants, Capital
Ventures International, LLC, and Nicholas Lampariello as the
original lenders under Plaintiff/Debtor’s Note and Mortgage;”
alleges (¶ 41) that Madison and other defendants “used corporate
entities to fraudulently exploit Plaintiff and vulnerably homes
owners through making false statements regarding parties
respective duties, obligations, and contractual rights through
3
deceptive loan modification schemes;” alleges (¶ 42) that Madison
and other defendants:
engage in deceptive business practices with respect to
mortgage loan servicing, assignments of notes and deeds
of trust, foreclosure of residential properties and by
improperly characterizing Plaintiffs accounts as being in
default or delinquent in furtherance of their Loan
Modification schemes. Defendants engaged in executing
and recording false and misleading documents; and acting
as beneficiaries and trustees without the legal authority
to do so;
alleges (¶ 43) that Madison and other defendants “represented to
Plaintiff that Defendants are the holder of Plaintiffs Note in
due course and that they have the right to file a judicial
foreclosure on the subject property;” alleges (¶ 45) that Madison
and other defendants “instituted several lawsuits against
Plaintiff/Debtor and each time, Defendants’ lawsuit against
Plaintiff/Debtor was dismissed for inability to produce the
“Original Note” to Plaintiffs real property;” alleges (¶ 54) that
Madison “camouflage as the purported servicer of the fraudulent
modification in furtherance of racketeering schemes;”and alleges
(¶ 59) that she seeks punitive damages against Madison for
“intentional deceit and for the unlawful encumbrance of
Plaintiffs real property.”
Many of the allegations accuse Madison, in conclusory terms,
of misconduct generally as to mortgagors in Florida, without
alleging that Madison engaged in such misconduct as to Quinteros.
Even when the allegations can be read as alleging fraudulent
4
conduct as to Quinteros, the Amended Complaint fails to provide
the “‘who, what, when, where, and how’ with respect to the
circumstances of the fraud” to sufficiently state a claim under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Anderson v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 221 F.R.D.
250, 253 (D.D.C. 2004).
Quinteros has not opposed Madison’s motion, and has failed
to point to any of the claims in the Amended Complaint that
adequately plead a claim upon which relief can be granted against
Madison. Each of those claims, resting on conclusory
allegations, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted against Madison.
In any event, in another Memorandum Decision of this date, I
have concluded, for reasons explained at length, that Quinteros
has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted against
Capital Ventures International, LLC, National Home Investors,
LLC, and Nicholas Lampariello, the entities who pursued
foreclosure against Quinteros’s Property. The allegations
against Madison, concerning the same conduct alleged against
those defendants, can fare no better.
For all of these reasons, it is
ORDERED that Management Services LLC’s motion to dismiss
(Dkt. No. 69) is GRANTED and this adversary proceeding is
5
dismissed with prejudice as to the claims against Madison
Management Services LLC.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Plaintiff (by hand-mailing unless her NEF request has
become effective); recipients of e-notification of orders.
6
R:\Common\TeelSM\Judge Temp Docs\Quinteros v. National Home Investors - Mem Decsn re Dismissing 1st Amended Complnt as to Madison_v7.wpd