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.

Nino v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

March 22, 2019

LUDYS C. NINO Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., ET AL. Defendants.

         RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOC NOS. 14, 24, 32); MOTIONS TO STRIKE (DOC. NOS. 30, 38); MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. NOS. 31, 36); MOTIONS FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DOC. NOS. 40, 41); AND MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. NOS. 28, 39).

          JANET C. HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, Ludys C. Nino (“Nino”) brings this pro se action against defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“CHL”); Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”); Indy Mac;[1]Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”); JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMC”); OneWest Bank (“CIT”)[2]; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”); M&T Bank Corporation (“M&T”); and various Jane and John Does. See Complaint (Doc. No. 1) at 4-5. Nino alleges that the defendants committed fraud, in violation of Connecticut law, and violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), by misrepresenting the appraisal value of two properties and fraudulently inducing Nino into entering into mortgages on those properties. See Compl. ¶¶ 113-18.

         Before the court are three Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 14, 24, 32); two Motions to Strike (Doc. Nos. 30, 38); two Motions for Sanctions (Doc. Nos. 31, 36); a Motion for Default Entry and a Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. Nos. 40, 41), and two Motions for Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. Nos. 28, 39). For the reasons stated below, the Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED, the Motions to Strike are DENIED, the Motions for Sanctions are DENIED, the Motion for Default Entry and Motion for Default Judgment are DENIED, and the Motions for Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order are DENIED.

         II. NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

         A. Motions to Strike

         As a preliminary matter, Nino's Motions to Strike BOA's and JPMC's Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 30, 38) are barred by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. BOA filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) on January 22, 2019 and JPMC filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 32) on February 22, 2019. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a), in turn, defines a “pleading” as “(1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a).

         Motions are not pleadings, and therefore a Motion to Strike a Motion to Dismiss is improper. Compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a) (defining pleadings), with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b) (defining motions). The Motions to Strike (Doc. Nos. 30, 38) are denied.

         B. Motions for Sanctions

         In her Motions for Sanctions (Doc. Nos. 31, 36), Nino moves this court to assess sanctions against the attorneys representing BOA and JPMC, on the basis of their filing BOA and JPMC's respective Motions to Dismiss. See Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 31) at 1; Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 36) at 1. Nino's arguments rely on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 11(c).[3] The court discerns no basis for the imposition of sanctions, nor does it find support for Nino's claims that the Motions to Dismiss were filed for improper purposes. Rather, the court finds upon review that the Motions to Dismiss are based on nonfrivolous arguments supported by existing law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2). The Motions for Sanctions (Doc. Nos. 31, 36) are therefore denied.

         C. Motion for Default and Motion for Default Judgment

         Nino also seeks entry of default and a default judgment against JPMC for failure to timely appear, plead, or otherwise defend the pending action. See Mot. for Entry of Default (Doc. No. 40) at 2. However, JPMC moved, on January 28, 2019, for an extension of time until March 1, 2019, to file a responsive pleading. See Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 18). The court granted that Motion. See Order (Doc. No. 19). JPMC filed its Motion to Dismiss on February 22, 2019, within the time provided by the extension. See Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 32). Because JPMC has timely defended the pending action, Nino's Motion for Entry of Default and Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. Nos. 40, 41) are denied.

         III. ...


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.