United States District Court, D. Connecticut
LUDYS C. NINO Plaintiff,
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., ET AL. Defendants.
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).
C. HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ludys C. Nino (“Nino”) brings this pro
se action against defendants Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc. (“CHL”); Bank of America, N.A.
(“BOA”); Indy Mac;Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
(“Ocwen”); JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(“JPMC”); OneWest Bank
(“CIT”); 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.
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
Motions to Strike
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).
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)
Motions for Sanctions
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). 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
Motion for Default and Motion for Default Judgment
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.