Taggart v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00063

KENNETH J. TAGGART, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00063

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

September 30, 2016

MEMORANDUM

STENGEL, J.

Currently pending before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company (collectively, the "Mortgage Defendants") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); (2) Defendant Lisa Roach ("Roach") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and (3) Defendant Eugene Jaskiewicz ("Jaskiewicz") pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2). For the following reasons, the Motions to Dismiss are granted.¹

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Kenneth J. Taggart ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. ("MERS"), MERSCORP, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. ("Freddie Mac"), American Partners Bank, Eugene Jaskiewicz, Lisa Roach, and John Doe Defendants, for various claims in connection with the property he owns at709 Schwab Road, Hatfield, Pennsylvania 19440 ("the Property"). (Compl. at 2 ¶ 1.)² Plaintiff seeks (1) to determine whether the note and mortgage "were ever perfected by the original lender under Pennsylvania law, or even if purported original lender had a legal existence;" (2) to determine "all claims made by purported subsequent, or claimed subsequent, or claimed successor's [sic] in interest to the mortgage and note under Pennsylvania Law;" (3) to determine "the validity of the mortgage, note, and any subsequent assignments of mortgage, or any interest in the Mortgage or Note;" and (4) "to have the court validate, or invalidate, any interest in the Mortgage and Note." (Compl. at 2 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff believes that (a) the note and mortgage were never perfected; (b) the original lender was not a legal entity on the date they were created; and (c) no party can make claims under Pennsylvania law to enforce either the mortgage or the note. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that "[s]everal parties" have made claims of ownership to the mortgage and note, and he therefore seeks "to 'Quiet Title' & [obtain] 'Declaratory Relief' against all claims of ownership, and rights associated with the mortgage and note." (Id. at 3 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff believes he "is entitled to declaratory relief as to the validity of the mortgage, note and any assignments." (Id.)

On February 6, 2009, a mortgage was recorded for the Property in the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds Office, indicating that the mortgage was originated by American Partners Bank, N.A. as the grantor and that Plaintiff is the grantee. (Id. at 6 ¶ 2.) The mortgage was originated on December 16, 2008. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the Note was never recorded. (Id. at 9 ¶ 9(k).) The mortgage was assigned to Wells Fargo, N.A. on April 5, 2010. (Id. at 6 ¶ 6.) On May 18, 2010, that assignment was recorded with the Recorder of Deeds in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. (Id. at 8 ¶ 8, 8 ¶ 9(a).) Plaintiff alleges numerous failures and defects inconnection with the mortgage and note and their creation, recording, and assignment. (See Complaint at 1-18.) All of the claims set forth in the Complaint stem from these purported failures and defects.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the United States Supreme Court recognized that "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555. Subsequently, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the Supreme Court defined a two-pronged approach to a court's review of a motion to dismiss. "First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678. Thus, while "Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era . . . it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Id. at 678-79.

Second, the Supreme Court emphasized that "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Id. at 679. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. A complaint does not show an entitlement to relief when the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct. Id.; see also Phillips v. Cnty. ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232-34 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that: (1) factual allegations of complaint must provide notice to defendant; (2) complaint must allege facts suggestive of the proscribed conduct; and (3) the complaint's "'factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)).

The basic tenets of the Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review have remained static. Spence v. Brownsville Area Sch. Dist., No. Civ.A.08-626, 2008 WL 2779079, at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 15, 2008). The general rules of pleading still require only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and need not contain detailed factual allegations. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 233. Further, the court must "accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006). Finally, the court must "determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Pinkerton v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002).

III. DISCUSSION

The Mortgage Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and because Plaintiff's claims are barred pursuant to res judicata. Roach moves to dismiss the claims against her for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and because Plaintiff never properly served her with the Complaint. Jaskiewicz moves to dismiss the claims against him for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6); because they are barred by Pennsylvania's judicial privilege, the gist of the action doctrine, and the economic loss doctrine; and for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). Having considered the Complaint and the parties' briefs, I find Plaintiff's claims against each of the Defendants fail as a matter of law. I will therefore grant the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

A. Quiet Title, Slander of Title, and Petition to Quiet Title Claims Against Wells Fargo, MERS, MERSCORP, and Freddie Mac

In Counts One, Two, and Three of the Complaint, Plaintiff sets forth claims for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory relief against Wells Fargo, MERS and MERSCORP, and Freddie Mac, seeking admissions, the surrender of documents, and declaratory relief in connection with the mortgage, note, and assignment. (See Compl. 19-28.) Plaintiff alleges that Freddie Mac purports to be the owner of the note and mortgage, that American Partners Bank did not exist the day the mortgage and note were created, that the note was not notarized or recorded, and that "[t]here have been claims by several parties to have an interest in the mortgage that was recorded." (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff further alleges numerous procedural and legal defects in connection with the mortgage, note, and assignment. (Id. at 7-19.)

1. Grounds for Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

a. Quiet Title

The Mortgage Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible quiet title claim against them due to numerous factual and legal insufficiencies in the Complaint with regard to both the mortgage and the assignment. First, with respect to the mortgage, the Mortgage Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not allege specific facts regarding the "claims by several parties" purporting to have an interest in the mortgage, nor did he allege that any party other than Wells Fargo has tried to enforce the mortgage and note. (Mortgage Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 9-10 (citing Orman v. MortgageIT, No. Civ.A. 11-3196, 2012 WL 1071219, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2012) (dismissing a quiet title claim where the plaintiffs did not allege facts or law supporting a need to quiet title).) Second, with respect to the assignment, MERS is the assignor, not MERSCORP, and thus Plaintiff has no basis whatsoever for asserting a quiet title claim against MERSCORP. (Mortgage Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 10 (citing Compl.Ex. D).) Third, the Mortgage Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not provide any legitimate legal basis for his challenges to the validity of the note, mortgage, and assignment, or his assertions that they somehow violated Pennsylvania's recording statutes and thus invalidated the mortgage. (Mortgage Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 10-13.) Lastly, Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the assignment. (Id. at 13 (citing Rottmund v. Continental Assurance Co., 761 F. Supp. 1208, 1209 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (stating that under Pennsylvania law, those not in privity of contract or with some other common law or statutory right are "strangers to the Agreement with no standing to assert any rights thereunder.").) Having reviewed the Complaint, I find that the...