Monica Every et al. v. Ajax Mortgage Loan Trust 2020-C, by U.S. Bank National Association, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants defendants’ motions to dismiss claims arising from a mortgage foreclosure. The court dismisses the plaintiffs’ federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, RESPA, TILA, and the FDCPA, finding that the pleadings were deficient or that certain claims were abandoned. The court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and wrongful foreclosure, dismissing them without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs failed to state a § 1981 claim because they did not plead facts supporting a reasonable inference that defendants acted with discriminatory intent or treated similarly situated nonminority borrowers more favorably.
2. Plaintiffs failed to state a RESPA dual-tracking claim because they did not allege that the mortgage was federally related or that they submitted a complete loss-mitigation application more than 37 days before the foreclosure sale.
3. Plaintiffs could not state a servicing-transfer-notice claim because the claim was not pleaded in either complaint, could not be added through opposition briefing, and in any event lacked sufficient factual support.
4. Plaintiffs abandoned their TILA claim by failing to add support for it in the supplemental complaint and failing to address it in opposition to the renewed motions to dismiss.
5. Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Ajax and Selene were debt collectors under the FDCPA because they were alleged to be holders of the note and plaintiffs did not plead facts establishing the statutory exception for an entity receiving a debt in default for collection.
6. Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an FDCPA claim against Jackson McPherson, LLC because they did not plead facts concerning the volume or frequency of the firm's debt-collection activities.
7. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original federal-question jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged discriminatory intent sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
2. Whether plaintiffs stated a claim under RESPA based on alleged dual tracking or failure to provide notice of a servicing transfer.
3. Whether plaintiffs abandoned their TILA claim by failing to support or address it in the supplemental complaint and oppositions.
4. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Ajax, Selene, or Jackson McPherson, LLC qualified as a debt collector under the FDCPA.
5. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed