Opinion

Thornton

Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
Filed: Jul 29, 2026
Cited by: 0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARY LEE THORNTON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 26-185-SDD-EWD

NATIONS LENDING CORP., ET AL.

CONSOLIDATED WITH

MARY THORNTON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 26-308-SDD-EWD

LOANCARE, LLC, ET AL.

NOTICE

Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation has

been filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have 14 days after being served with the

attached report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and

recommendations set forth therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon

grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and

legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.

ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE

WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 29, 2026.

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARY LEE THORNTON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO.26-185-SDD-EWD

NATIONS LENDING CORP., ET AL.

CONSOLIDATED WITH

MARY THORNTON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO.26-308-SDD-EWD

LOANCARE, LLC, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, RECOMMENDATION, AND ORDER1

Before the Court are the following motions: “Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Compel

Production of Original Note, and Verified Federal Complaint for Damages Under the False Claims

Act, Fraud, Deceptive Practices, Extortion, RESPA, FDCPA, RICO, and Other Claims;”2

“Plaintiff’s Omnibus Filing: Combined Motions to Decline Magistrate and Maintain Separate

Defendants; Motion to Void ‘Death Pledge’; and Verified Counterclaim for $5,000,000;”3

“Praecipe to the Clerk of Courts (Writ of Instruction to the Clerk of Courts) Regarding Petitioner’s

1 Plaintiff filed a “Plaintiff’s Omnibus Filing: Combined Motions to Decline Magistrate and Maintain Separate

Defendants; Motion to Void ‘Death Pledge’; and Verified Counterclaim for $5,000,000,” requesting, in part, that her

case be heard by a district judge. R. Doc. 7. (Documents in the Court record of Case No. 26-185 are referred to as “R.

Doc. __.” Documents in Case No. 26-308 are referred to as “R. Doc. __, Case No. 26-308.”). See also R. Doc. 16, p.

1 (reiterating Plaintiff’s demand for adjudication for all matters in this case by an Article III judge). Regarding

Plaintiff’s attempted declination of consent to a magistrate judge and/or demand for adjudication of all matters in this

case by a district judge, the undersigned has the authority to conduct activity in any case as authorized by Congress in

28 U.S.C. § 636. This case was referred to the undersigned for disposition. The undersigned will file this Report and

Recommendation regarding disposition of the pending motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). The parties

will then have fourteen (14) days after service the Report and Recommendation to file any written objections. The

assigned district judge will make a de novo determination of any objected-to portions of the proposed findings and/or

recommendations as provided in the statute, without deference to the undersigned’s findings and recommendations.

2 R. Doc. 3.

3 R. Doc. 7.

Petition to the Court for the issuance of a Writ of habeas Corpus;”4 “Plaintiff’s Omnibus Filing:

Motion for Leave to Amend; First Amended Verified Counterclaim; and Proposed Order;”5

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Void Mortgage;”6 “Motion to Proceed Sui Juris;”7

and “Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint,”8 filed by Mary Lee Thornton

(“Plaintiff”), who is representing herself. Plaintiff’s requests for relief are unclear. To the extent

Plaintiff wants to amend her original Complaint, leave should be denied without prejudice.

However, Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to file a comprehensive amended complaint that

contains all her claims against each defendant, and that clearly and succinctly states the basis for

relief against each defendant, without reference to any other document in the record. As further

explained below, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s other motions be denied, either because they

lack merit, are procedurally improper, or are premature considering the recommendation that

Plaintiff clarify her claims. Further, because it is recommended that Plaintiff amend her original

Complaint, it is also recommended that Defendants Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC’s, and

LoanCare, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint9 be denied without prejudice

to reurging dismissal in response to any amended complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

Although Plaintiff has had cases pending in this Court for under six months, numerous

filings have made the nature and status of Plaintiff’s claims confusing.

4 R. Doc. 8.

5 R. Doc. 9.

6 R. Doc. 11.

7 R. Doc. 27.

8 R. Doc. 28. Defendants Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, and LoanCare, LLC filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion

for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. See R. Doc. 35.

9 R. Doc. 30.

Case No. 26-185

Plaintiff filed her original Complaint in Case No. 26-185 on or about February 20, 2026 on

a standard complaint form. While the caption of the original Complaint states that the defendants

are Nations Lending Corporation (“Nations Lending”) and LoanCare/Lakeview Servicing

Corporation,10 later on the Complaint form, Plaintiff lists the defendants as follows: Nations

Lending Corporation, Keller Williams Reality [sic], JP Realestate LA, LLC, and Priority Title &

Escrow, LLC.11 As the basis for federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff lists the following statutes:

UCC Articles 3 and 9, 28 USC 1331, RICO 18 USC 1962, 31 USC 3729, 16 CFR 433.1(a), 12

USC 83A, 28 USC 2007, 12 USC 1431, 12 USC 412, 15 USC 44, UCC 1-308, and 15 USC 1.12

For the statement of her claim, the original Complaint asserts as follows: “On or around January

31, 2022 I was coerced into signing my signature on a deed and trust for property 12572 E Sheraton

Ave that was paid in full and promisery [sic] note was cashed in and sold to another party which

was LoanCare from Nations Lending.”13 In the original Complaint, Plaintiff seeks $20 million in

compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages where permitted by statute, injunctive relief,

correction of mortgage account, attorney fees and costs, and any other relief deemed just and

proper.14

On or about February 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed the “Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Compel

Production of Original Note, and Verified Federal Complaint for Damages Under the False Claims

Act, Fraud, Deceptive Practices, Extortion, RESPA, FDCPA, RICO, and Other Claims;”15 which

10 R. Doc. 1, p. 1.

11 R. Doc. 1, p. 2.

12 R Doc. 1, p. 3.

13 R. Doc. 1, p. 4.

14 R. Doc. 1, p. 5.

15 R. Doc. 3.

seeks the following relief: dismissal of all claims and adverse actions for lack of standing,

production of the original wet-ink promissory note for inspection, and production of other items.

In the motion, Plaintiff blanketly alleges causes of action under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §

3729), common law fraud, deceptive trade practices, extortion, negligent misrepresentation, breach

of contract, RESPA violations, FDCPA violations, and civil RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962). Plaintiff

also asserts a “counterclaim” against “Counter-Defendants,” but does not identify the counter-

defendants. The “counterclaim” appears to arise out of the same factual bases as Plaintiff’s original

claims.16

On or about April 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Plaintiff’s Omnibus Filing:

Combined Motions to Decline Magistrate and Maintain Separate Defendants; Motion to Void

‘Death Pledge’; and Verified Counterclaim for $5,000,000.”17 In that document, Plaintiff declines

consent to a magistrate judge, which is addressed above. Plaintiff also moves to maintain separate

defendants, to “void the ‘death pledge,’” and states that she “counter-sues Defendants, jointly and

severally,” for $5,000,000 for slander of title, LUTPA violations, and intentional infliction of

emotional distress.18 To the extent this document purports to the amend the original Complaint,

Plaintiff filed the document without leave and had already amended the original Complaint with

her February 20, 2026 filing.19

16 R. Doc. 3, p. 6. On or about May 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Motion to

Compel Production of Original Instrument” in support of this motion. R. Doc. 10. The same date, Plaintiff filed a

document titled, “Rule 37(a)(1) Certificate of Good Faith Conference,” which seems to be in support of the request

for production of certain information. R. Doc. 13.

17 R. Doc. 7.

18 R. Doc. 7, p. 2.

19 See R. Doc. 3, pp. 4-6 (which is phrased “Federal Complaint for Damages”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, which

states in relevant part: “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course…. In all other cases, a party may

amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1)-

(2).

On or about April 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Praecipe to the Clerk of

Courts (Writ of Instruction to the Clerk of Courts) Regarding Petitioner’s Petition to the Court for

the issuance of a Writ of habeas Corpus.”20 This document purports to provide notice to the Clerk

of Court regarding various contentions and appears to seek judicial remedy for what Plaintiff

characterizes as a restraint on her liberty by unidentified “respondents.” The document also

reiterates that Plaintiff wishes to have this case heard by an Article III judge.21

On or about May 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Plaintiff’s Omnibus Filing:

Motion for Leave to Amend; First Amended Verified Counterclaim; and Proposed Order.”22 Here,

Plaintiff says she seeks to clarify that her counterclaim seeks damages of $5,000,00 per entity and

seeks judgment against Nations Lending Corporation and LoanCare, LLC. On the same date,

Plaintiff also filed a “Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Void Mortgage.”23

On or about June 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Amended Complaint:

Demand for Damages and Criminal/Civil Statutory Violations.” This document appears to be a

supplemental complaint related to LoanCare, LLC (“LoanCare”) and Lakeview Loan Servicing,

LLC (“Lakeview”) “bypass[ing] the authority of this Court by mailing a fraudulent, out-of-court

threat of immediate ‘seizure of property’ targeted for August 2026.”24 This “Amended Complaint”

asserts claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f), civil

rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and a notice of criminal liability for mail fraud

20 R. Doc. 8.

21 R. Doc. 8-1, p. 6.

22 R. Doc. 9.

23 R. Doc. 11.

24 R. Doc. 22. Nations Lending is not referenced in this document.

and extortionate threats under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 873.25 To the extent this document purports

to the amend the original Complaint, Plaintiff filed the document without leave, and had already

amended the original Complaint of right with her February 20, 2026 filing (in addition to the other

amendments described above). This document also contains an “Emergency Motion for TRO and

Preliminary Injunction.”26

On or about July 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “First Amended Complaint,”

which appears to assert some of the same claims previously asserted but, again, appears to be a

supplemental complaint arising out of Defendants’ “written notice threatening an ‘immediate

seizure of her home scheduled for August 2026.”27 As with the June 18 filing, only LoanCare and

Lakeview are listed as Defendants.28 Further, as with the June 18th filing, Plaintiff asserts causes

of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f). Plaintiff

also asserts claims for RESPA violations under 12 U.S.C. § 2605 and intentional infliction of

emotional distress. To the extent this document purports to the amend the original Complaint,

Plaintiff filed the document without leave and had already amended the original Complaint of right

with her February 20, 2026 filing (in addition to the other amendments described above).

On or about July 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Complaint.”29 The attached “Second Amended Complaint lists Nations Lending,

Lakeview and LoanCare” as defendants in the caption, but only lists Nations Lending Corporation

25 R. Doc. 22, p. 2. Though Plaintiff also references RESPA (12 U.S.C.§ 2605) in the “Jurisdiction and Applicable

Law” section of this document, she fails to address RESPA when listing her causes of action and statutory violations.

R. Doc. 22, pp. 1-2.

26 R. Doc. 22, pp. 3-4. To the extent this document contains an “Emergency Motion for TRO and Preliminary

Injunction,” it has been recommended that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be denied. R. Doc. 34.

27 R. Doc. 24. Nations Lending is not referenced in the “First Amended Complaint.”

28 R. Doc. 24, p. 1.

29 R. Doc. 28.

and Lakeview as defendants in the body and only requests issuance of summonses for these two

entities (not LoanCare).30 The same date, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Proceed Sui Juris,” seeking

to represent herself in this case.31

Also, on July 6 and July 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed two, “Federal Court – Emergency Motion

for TRO and Preliminary Injunction” (together, the “Emergency Motion”)32 in which she asks this

Court to enjoin a foreclosure sale of her home scheduled for August 6, 2026. Though Plaintiff

earlier contended that no case of foreclosure was pending,33 Defendants have provided evidence

that a foreclosure proceeding was filed on May 1, 2026.34 Plaintiff seemingly admits in the second

Emergency Motion that a foreclosure case does exist.35 The undersigned issued a Report and

Recommendation on July 22, 2026, recommending denial of the Emergency Motion because

30 R. Doc. 28-1, pp. 2, 6. Though the “Cover Letter to Clerk of Court” (R. Doc. 28-3) states that a summons for

LoanCare, LLC was included, only summonses for Lakeview and Nations Lending are attached. See R. Doc. 28-2.

31 R. Doc. 27.

32 R. Docs. 25, 29.

33 See R. Doc. 25, p. 1 (“No foreclosure case exists, no writ has been issued, and no judge has authorized any seizure.”)

and R. Doc. 26, p. 1 (“Plaintiff confirmed with the 19th Judicial District Court and the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff

that no foreclosure case exists and no writ has been issued.”). Indeed, part of the basis for some of Plaintiff’s claims

in her earlier filings is that “Defendants” misrepresented that a foreclosure case was pending. See, e.g., R. Doc. 22,

which alleges that LoanCare and Lakeview “bypassed the authority of this Court by mailing a fraudulent, out-of-court

threat of immediate ‘seizure of property’ targeted for August 2026.”

34 See R. Doc. 30-5 (Petition for Executory Process). The same day Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s

Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 25), Defendants Lakeview and

LoanCare also filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”), seeking dismissal of

Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim and improper service. R. Doc. 30. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss attaches

exhibits, including the Petition for Executory Process, that are incorporated by reference into their opposition to

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion. See R. Doc. 31, p. 1.

35 R. Doc. 29, p. 1 (“1. Plaintiff's home is scheduled for foreclosure sale on August 6, 2026, creating imminent and

irreparable harm. 2. Defendants lacked standing at inception to foreclose, failed to prove possession of the note, and

initiated foreclosure without proper authority.”). This statement acknowledges that a foreclosure sale was “initiated,”

allegedly without proper authority. The Petition for Executory Process, filed by Lakeview and LoanCare in Louisiana

state court, references the seizure and sale of Plaintiff’s property. See R. Doc. 30-5, p. 3, ¶ 5 (“The Mortgagor

confessed judgment upon the Note and Mortgage and consented that if the same were not paid in accordance with

their terms and conditions, the Property might be seized and sold by executory process for cash with or without benefit

of appraisement and without the necessity of legal demand for payment or putting in default.”).The Petition for

Executory Process also requests that the Louisiana state court issue a writ of seizure and sale commanding the sheriff

of East Baton Rouge Parish to seize and sell the property. R. Doc. 30-5, p. 5.

Plaintiff’s request is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, and also fails on the

merits.36

Case No. 26-308

Plaintiff filed another lawsuit on or about March 19, 2026 against LoanCare and

Lakeview.37 In that case, Plaintiff alleges that she executed a mortgage and promissory note on

January 31, 2022. Plaintiff further alleges that LoanCare and Lakeview are not the original holders

of the promissory note and have failed to produce the original, wet-ink promissory note, a valid

chain of assignments, authenticated endorsements, or lawful proof of transfer of the debt.38

Plaintiff contends that, “[w]ithout proof of ownership of the note, [LoanCare and Lakeview] lack

standing to enforce the mortgage.”39 Plaintiff also alleges that LoanCare and Lakeview demanded

payments not legally owed, threatened foreclosure without standing, and refused to validate the

debt upon her request.40 Although Plaintiff handwrote in various federal statutes and claims this

Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the case involves federal mortgage servicing

and consumer protection issues, Plaintiff only provides factual support for the following four

“counts”: fraud and intentional misrepresentation, extortionate conduct, violation of the Louisiana

Unfair Trade Practices Act, and lack of standing/failure to produce the note.41 In that case, Plaintiff

requests declarations that LoanCare and Lakeview lack standing to enforce the promissory note

and mortgage, that these defendants be ordered to produce the original note and all assignments,

and that any fraudulent or improperly executed documents be declare null and void. Plaintiff also

36 R. Doc. 34.

37 R. Doc. 1, Case No. 26-308.

38 R. Doc. 1, p. 2, Case No. 26-308.

39 Id.

40 Id.

41 R. Doc. 1, p. 3, Case No. 26-308.

seeks to enjoin these defendants from any foreclosure or collection activity, and an award of $5

million in damages, as well and costs, fees and any other additional relief deemed proper by the

Court.42

Consolidation

The Court ordered the cases consolidated for all purposes on March 30, 2026.43 The Court

also granted Plaintiff pauper status on February 25, 2026, but originally withheld the issuance of

process and service.44 On May 21, 2026, the Court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue process and

ordered service on the defendants by the United States Marshals Service.45

Appearance of Lakeview and LoanCare

Lakeview and LoanCare appeared on July 15, 2026 and filed the Motion to Dismiss, which

seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) for insufficient service of process and failure to state a claim.46 Lakeview

and LoanCare also filed a combined opposition47 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) and to the Emergency Motion (Doc. 29).48

42 R. Doc. 1, p. 4, Case No. 26-308.

43 R. Doc. 6.

44 R. Doc. 5.

45 R. Doc. 17.

46 R. Doc. 30.

47 R. Doc. 35.

48 Defendants Lakeview and LoanCare also filed an opposition to the Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion (R. Doc. 25), filed

on July 6, 2026. R. Doc. 31.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Standard for Amendment of Pleadings

Here, Plaintiff’s filings have caused significant confusion about what claims she is bringing

and against which entities. The “First Amended Complaint,”49 filed on July 6, 2026 is the most

recently filed complaint.50 As noted, above, the “First Amended Complaint,” appears to assert

some of the same claims previously asserted but, also seems to be in the nature of a supplemental

complaint because it references what appears to be the new action of Defendants’ “written notice

threatening an ‘immediate seizure of her home scheduled for August 2026.”51 In the “First

Amended Complaint,” Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f, RESPA violations under 12 U.S.C. § 2605, and intentional

infliction of emotional distress, a state law tort. Notably, Plaintiff’s “First Amended Complaint”

did not specifically adopt or incorporate by reference any of Plaintiff’s prior pleadings. As such,

the “First Amended Complaint” “rendered the [prior pleadings] of no effect…”52 and “entirely

superseded and took the place of the” earlier pleadings.53 In other words, at this point, the operative

49 R. Doc. 24.

50 Although Plaintiff filed an original Complaint and then filed several prior amendments without leave of court, which

is technically a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, because no defendant had appeared as of the time

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, the pleadings filed up to that point will not be stricken from the record.

51 R. Doc. 24, p. 1.

52 Raskin on behalf of JD v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 69 F.4th 280, 282, n. 1 (5th Cir. 2023).

53 Clark v. Tarrant County, Texas, 798 F.2d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 1986)(citations omitted), and see Raskin on behalf of

JD, 69 F.4th at 282, n. 1 (“Although we construe Raskin’s pro se pleadings liberally, see SEC v. AMX, Int’l, Inc., 7

F.3d 71, 75 (5th Cir. 1993), we cannot say that her amended complaint ‘specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates

by reference’ the original complaint, King, 31 F.3d at 346.”). See also Foster v. Jayden Hosp., LLC, No. 20-359, 2021

WL 4498558, at *3 (M.D. La. Sept. 14, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-359, 2021 WL 4497482

(M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2021) (Dick, C.J.) (“[A]s [the pro se] Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not incorporate any

previous Complaints, said Amended Complaint supersedes any prior filings and is now the only operative Complaint

in this case.”). Therefore, the original Complaint and all amendments before Plaintiff filed the “First Amended

Complaint” are of no effect.

Complaint that contains Plaintiff’s claims is the “First Amended Complaint,” without reference to

any of Plaintiff’s earlier-filed pleadings.54

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint55 Should Be Denied

Without Prejudice; Plaintiff Should Be Ordered to File a Comprehensive Amended

Complaint to Clarify Her Claims; and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss56 Should Be

Denied Without Prejudice

Allowing Plaintiff leave to file what she calls a “Second Amended Complaint,” but which

is actually more like the fifth or sixth attempt at amendment, will not clarify this case. As noted,

above, the proposed “Second Amended Complaint” lists Nations Lending, Lakeview, and

LoanCare as defendants in the caption, but only lists Nations Lending Corporation and Lakeview

as defendants in the body and only requests issuance of summonses for these two entities (not

LoanCare).57 Therefore, the defendants are not clear. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges in the “Second

Amended Complaint” that “Defendants violated federal regulations governing mortgage servicing,

disclosures, and financial reporting, including 12 U.S.C. § 2605 (RESPA servicing disclosures);

12 C.F.R. § 1024 (Regulation X servicing standards); 12 U.S.C. § 5531 (UDAAP); and 15 U.S.C.

§ 1692 (FDCPA debt collections standards).”58 It appears this is the first time in Plaintiff’s

pleadings that she has referenced violations of Regulation X or the UDAAP.59 The “Second

Amended Complaint” also alleges claims for fraud, breach of contract, failure to provide full

accounting, unjust enrichment, wrongful foreclosure and failure to disclose material information.60

54 The causes of action vary in each iteration of Plaintiff’s complaint. See R. Docs. 1, 3, 22, 24. Despite Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, this Report and Recommendation considers the First

Amended Complaint, which is the one most recently filed, Plaintiff’s operative complaint.

55 R. Doc. 28.

56 R. Doc. 30.

57 R. Doc. 28-1, pp. 2, 6.

58 Id. at p. 4.

59 The UDAAP is Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices, 12 U.S.C. § 5531.

60 R. Doc. 28-1, pp. 4-5.

However, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations in support of these claims are insufficient to state a

claim. For example, with regard to the RESPA, Regulation X, UDAAP and FDCPA claims,

Plaintiff merely states that “Defendants failed to disclose material information required under

federal law, including servicing transfers, escrow exchanges and financial accounting.”61

Plaintiff’s conclusory statement as to Defendants’ failures to provide information without further

factual support is insufficient.62 Similarly, with regard to the additional claims in the “Second

Amended Complaint,” Plaintiff has just one sentence of factual support. For example, for the fraud

claim, Plaintiff says, “Defendant made false or misleading representations regarding loan funding,

servicing, accounting, and foreclosure.”63 Plaintiff does not say what the false or misleading

representations were or when they occurred. Regarding the breach of contract and failure to

provide a full accounting claims, Plaintiff just states in a conclusory fashion that “Defendants

breached the mortgage contract and servicing obligations,” and “failed to provide a complete

accounting.”64 She does not say how the defendants allegedly breached their obligations, nor what

accounting was requested or required.

Plaintiff’s July 13, 2026 “Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint”65 should

be denied without prejudice and Plaintiff should be ordered to file a comprehensive amended

61 R. Doc. 28-1, p. 4.

62 The earlier “Factual Allegations” section of the proposed “Second Amended Complaint” also does not provide

sufficient information as to which defendants engaged in the conduct alleged or when. For example, while Plaintiff

says, “Defendants misapplied payment, failed to credit amounts properly, and maintained inaccurate records” (R. Doc.

28-1, p. 2), she does not provide any factual support for these claims as to what payments she is claiming were

misapplied, when amounts were not credited properly, what made the records inaccurate, and which defendant(s)

engaged in this conduct. Likewise, Plaintiff claims that “Defendants breached contractual obligations by failing to

service the loan in accordance with the mortgage agreement” (Id.) but she does not explain what provisions of the

mortgage agreement were breached or what acts or omissions constituted a breach of those provisions.

63 Id.

64 Id.

65 R. Doc. 28.

complaint that contains all her allegations against each defendant. The amended complaint should

clearly set out what Plaintiff is claiming each named defendant did or did not do to harm her and

under what statutory provisions she is seeking recovery.66 It should also contain sufficient facts to

support the elements of any claim she is asserting.67 For example, the FDCPA prohibits a debt

collector, defined as “any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails

in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly

collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or

due another,” from using any false or misleading representations or unfair practices (among other

prohibitions) in connection with collecting or attempting to collect debt from a consumer.68

However, a regular mortgage servicer is not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA if the mortgage

is not in default.69 Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to determine which of the defendants

may be a debt collector because that defendant was servicing the mortgage after it was in default.

Additionally, Plaintiff needs to specifically describe what the false and misleading representations

or unfair practices are for each defendant against whom she is asserting an FDCPA claim.

66 To state a claim against each defendant, a plaintiff may not employ “shotgun pleadings.” Quintessential shotgun

pleadings fail to distinguish between the actions of named defendants. Rather, these pleadings lump all defendants

together and make no differentiation between defendants as to any action taken with respect to the claim. See Sahlein

v. Red Oak Capital, Inc., No. 13-67, 2014 WL 3046477, at *3-4 (N.D. Miss. July 3, 2014) (dismissing complaint

where “numerous paragraphs in the complaint attribute[d] discrete actions … to all or multiple defendants without

explaining the basis for such grouping or distinguishing between the relevant conduct of the named Defendants.”);

Martin v. Tesoro Corp., No. 11-1413, 2012 WL 1866841, at *2 (W.D. La. May 21, 2012) (explaining that an improper

“shotgun pleading” that “references all defendants collectively” makes it “impossible for the court and the parties to

determine which defendant is alleged to have engaged in which acts.” (citations omitted)); In re CLK Energy Partners,

LLC, No. 09-50616, 2010 WL 1930065, at *7 (W.D. La. Bankr. May 12, 2010) (“A complaint cannot group all

defendants into ‘one wrongdoing monolith.’”).

67 Plaintiff should be warned that this amended complaint will be the operative complaint without reference to any