Irvin J. Betch et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed pro se plaintiffs’ claims arising from a mortgage loan, foreclosure, and alleged inaccurate credit reporting. The court granted motions to dismiss and motions for joinder, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as moot, denied a motion to strike and for leave to file a surreply, and denied the consumer reporting agencies’ request for attorney’s fees. The opinion addresses personal jurisdiction, service of process, failure to state a claim, and claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs failed to state claims under FCRA §§ 1681e and 1681i against individual officers and directors because they did not allege that those individuals were themselves consumer reporting agencies, acted in their personal capacities, or were the guiding spirit or central figures behind the alleged misconduct.
2. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under § 1681e because they did not allege facts showing that Trans Union, Equifax, or Experian failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.
3. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under § 1681i because they did not allege facts showing that any consumer reporting agency failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.
4. Claims against Cassin and Brittain were dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to effect valid service and failed to plead facts establishing personal jurisdiction over either defendant.
5. Plaintiffs' TILA and FDCPA claims arising from the mortgage and foreclosure were barred by res judicata.
6. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim against Nationstar under FCRA § 1681s-2(b), construed liberally, because they did not identify the disputed information, provide facts showing an objectively verifiable inaccuracy, or allege that a consumer reporting agency notified Nationstar of the dispute.
7. Plaintiffs failed to state cognizable claims for breach of fiduciary duty, securities fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1348, violation of the FTC Act under 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), or violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1431.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs stated viable claims under Fair Credit Reporting Act §§ 1681e, 1681i, and, as liberally construed, § 1681s-2(b).
2. Whether individual corporate officers and directors could be held liable under the pleaded Fair Credit Reporting Act provisions based solely on their corporate positions and alleged management authority.
3. Whether claims against foreign defendants should be dismissed for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction.
4. Whether Plaintiffs' Truth in Lending Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims arising from the mortgage and foreclosure were barred by res judicata.
5. Whether the complaint stated cognizable claims under the pleaded breach-of-fiduciary-duty, securities-fraud, Federal Trade Commission Act, and 12 U.S.C. § 1431 theories.
6. Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to strike portions of defendants' motions or file a surreply.
7. Whether Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment remained viable after dismissal of the complaint.

Disposition

dismissed