Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blamires v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

United States District Court, D. Utah

April 25, 2018

CRAIG ALLEN BLAMIRES SANDRA LEE BLAMIRES, Plaintiffs,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

          Ted Stewart United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendants' Motions and the time to do so has expired. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs' federal law claims with prejudice and remand the remaining claims to state court.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On August 13, 2007, Plaintiffs Craig A. Blamires and Sandra Blamires executed a deed of trust against real property located in South Jordan, Utah, securing their payment obligations under a promissory note. A default occurred under the terms of the note and deed of trust. The default was not cured and, on February 22, 2017, a foreclosure sale occurred where the property was sold.

         Plaintiffs brought this action in state court on December 15, 2017. Defendants removed this action to this Court. On March 2, 2018, Defendants filed two Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to those Motions.

         II. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD

         In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6), all well-pleaded factual allegations, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, are accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs as the nonmoving party.[1] Plaintiffs must provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, ”[2] which requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully harmed-me accusation.”[3] “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.'”[4]

         “The court's function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the plaintiff's complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be granted.”[5] As the Court in Iqbal stated,

only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not shown-that the pleader is entitled to relief.[6]

         In considering a motion to dismiss, a district court not only considers the complaint, “but also the attached exhibits, ”[7] and “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.”[8] The Court “may consider documents referred to in the complaint if the documents are central to the plaintiff's claim and the parties do not dispute the documents' authenticity.”[9]

         Because Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court must construe their pleadings liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.[10] However, “[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff's complaint does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.”[11] “Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.”[12]

         III. DISCUSSION

          Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts a number of claims. Defendants removed this action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction rests on Plaintiffs' claims under the Truth in Lending Act and the Fair ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.