UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) M. NAWAZ RAJA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 16-cv-0511 (KBJ) ) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ) CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiffs M. Nawaz and Neelum Nawaz Raja (“Plaintiffs”) filed the
instant action on March 17, 2016, against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
numerous companies—including foreign business entities, banks, or subsidiaries
thereof—and the former chief executive officer of Indy Mac Bank. (See Compl., ECF
No. 1, ¶¶ 9–27.) In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert nine claims under the Truth in
Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and common law related to the
refinancing of their home loan and the defendants’ attempts to foreclose on their
property. (See id. ¶¶ 353–447 (claiming (1) “failure to give 3 day cooling period” in
violation of the TILA; (2) “violation of premature performance” under the TILA; (3)
“non-compliance” with the TILA; (4) “violation pursuant to[] section 130(a)” of the
TILA; (5) “breach of contract”; (6) “appraisal fraud”; (7) “slander of title and quiet
title”; (8) “fraud with fraudulent concealment”; and (9) “unjust enrichment”).)
On April 18, 2017, this Court referred this matter for random assignment to a
Magistrate Judge for full case management. (See Min. Order of Apr. 18, 2017.) The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, and the following year
twelve of the sixteen remaining named defendants—hereinafter referred to as
“Defendants”—filed four motions to dismiss. (See ECF No. 58 (motion to dismiss filed
by defendants MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., Merscorp Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank
AG, and Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.); ECF No. 61 (motion to dismiss filed by
IndyMac ABS, Inc. and IndyMac MBS, Inc.); ECF No. 66 (motion to dismiss filed by
CIT Bank, N.A., OneWest Bank N.A., and IndyMac Mortgage Services); ECF No. 81
(motion to dismiss filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation).) 1 Each of
Defendants’ motions to dismiss argues, among other things, that Plaintiffs’ complaint
fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See ECF No. 58-
2, at 21–22; ECF No. 61-1, at 10; ECF No. 66-1, at 22–25; ECF No. 81-1, at 26–27.) 2
Before this Court at present is the Report and Recommendation that Magistrate
Judge Robinson filed regarding Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (See R. & R., ECF No.
104.) 3 The Report and Recommendation reflects Magistrate J udge Robinson’s
considered opinion that Defendants’ motions to dismiss should be granted, because
Plaintiffs’ complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8’s
requirement concerning a “short and plain statement” of the claim. (See id. at 4
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Robinson finds that
1 This Court previously dismissed two other defendants from this action. (See ECF No. 103 (memorandum opinion and order dismissing the action as to IMB Holdco LLC and Indy Mac Ventures LLC).) 2 Page number citations refer to the numbers automatically assigned by the Court’s electronic case filing system. 3 The Report and Recommendation, which is 7 pages long, is attached hereto as Appendix A.
2 Plaintiffs’ seventy-five-page complaint “consist[s] almost entirely of a recitation of
grievances and conspiracy theories concerning financial institutions and federal
regulators[,]” and includes not only “allegations with respect to entities and individuals
not named as Defendants,” but also “vague and conclusory assertions regarding the
activity of various mortgage lenders, and claims regarding actions undertaken by
Defendant FDIC in wholly unrelated matters[.]” (Id. at 5 (internal citations omitted).)
In Magistrate Judge Robinson’s view, these flaws in Plaintiffs’ pleading prevented
Defendants from “receiv[ing] fair notice of the claim[s] against them [,]” which is the
very problem that Rule 8’s “short and plain statement” requirement addresses. (See id.
at 4 (citing Terrell v. Mr. Cooper Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-0496, 2020 WL 4673420, at *3
(D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2020)).) And based on that finding, Magistrate Judge Robinson
concludes that Plaintiffs’ complaint must be dismissed. (See id. at 7; see also id. at 4
(explaining that a court “may dismiss the pleading or the action” if “a complaint fails to
comport with the standards of Rule 8” (quoting Terrell, 2020 WL 4673420, at *3)).)
In addition to articulating these findings and conclusions, Magistrate Judge
Robinson’s Report and Recommendation also advises the parties that they may file
written objections to the Report and Recommendation, which must include “the portions
of the findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis of each
such objection.” (See id. at 7.) The Report and Recommendation also advises the
parties that “[i]n the absence of timely objections, further review of issues addressed [in
the Report and Recommendation] may be deemed waived.” (Id.) Under this Court’s
local rules, any party who objects to a Report and Recommendation must file a written
objection with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of the Report
3 and Recommendation. LCvR 72.3(b). The due date for objections has passed, and the
parties have not filed any objections.
This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Robinson’s report and agrees with its
legal analysis and conclusions. Therefore, the Court will ADOPT the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, as set forth in the separate Order that
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos.
58, 61, 66, and 81) will be GRANTED. Furthermore, to the extent that not all of the
defendants in this action have filed or joined these motions to dismiss, this Court
further finds that Plaintiffs’ claims with respect to those defendants are also
insufficiently pled, see Fontaine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 42 F. Supp. 3d 102,
107 (D.D.C. 2014) (explaining that courts may dismiss a comp laint sua sponte for
failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8), and thus Plaintiffs’ entire
Complaint, ECF No. 1, will be DISMISSED without prejudice.
DATE: September 30, 2020 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge
4 Appendix A
M. NAWAZ RAJA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 16-511 KBJ/DAR FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs M. Nawaz and Neelum Nawaz Raja commenced this action by filing a seventy-
five-page, 447-paragraph Complaint. Complaint (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs named as Defendants
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) M. NAWAZ RAJA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 16-cv-0511 (KBJ) ) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ) CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiffs M. Nawaz and Neelum Nawaz Raja (“Plaintiffs”) filed the
instant action on March 17, 2016, against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
numerous companies—including foreign business entities, banks, or subsidiaries
thereof—and the former chief executive officer of Indy Mac Bank. (See Compl., ECF
No. 1, ¶¶ 9–27.) In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert nine claims under the Truth in
Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and common law related to the
refinancing of their home loan and the defendants’ attempts to foreclose on their
property. (See id. ¶¶ 353–447 (claiming (1) “failure to give 3 day cooling period” in
violation of the TILA; (2) “violation of premature performance” under the TILA; (3)
“non-compliance” with the TILA; (4) “violation pursuant to[] section 130(a)” of the
TILA; (5) “breach of contract”; (6) “appraisal fraud”; (7) “slander of title and quiet
title”; (8) “fraud with fraudulent concealment”; and (9) “unjust enrichment”).)
On April 18, 2017, this Court referred this matter for random assignment to a
Magistrate Judge for full case management. (See Min. Order of Apr. 18, 2017.) The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, and the following year
twelve of the sixteen remaining named defendants—hereinafter referred to as
“Defendants”—filed four motions to dismiss. (See ECF No. 58 (motion to dismiss filed
by defendants MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., Merscorp Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank
AG, and Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.); ECF No. 61 (motion to dismiss filed by
IndyMac ABS, Inc. and IndyMac MBS, Inc.); ECF No. 66 (motion to dismiss filed by
CIT Bank, N.A., OneWest Bank N.A., and IndyMac Mortgage Services); ECF No. 81
(motion to dismiss filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation).) 1 Each of
Defendants’ motions to dismiss argues, among other things, that Plaintiffs’ complaint
fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See ECF No. 58-
2, at 21–22; ECF No. 61-1, at 10; ECF No. 66-1, at 22–25; ECF No. 81-1, at 26–27.) 2
Before this Court at present is the Report and Recommendation that Magistrate
Judge Robinson filed regarding Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (See R. & R., ECF No.
104.) 3 The Report and Recommendation reflects Magistrate J udge Robinson’s
considered opinion that Defendants’ motions to dismiss should be granted, because
Plaintiffs’ complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8’s
requirement concerning a “short and plain statement” of the claim. (See id. at 4
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Robinson finds that
1 This Court previously dismissed two other defendants from this action. (See ECF No. 103 (memorandum opinion and order dismissing the action as to IMB Holdco LLC and Indy Mac Ventures LLC).) 2 Page number citations refer to the numbers automatically assigned by the Court’s electronic case filing system. 3 The Report and Recommendation, which is 7 pages long, is attached hereto as Appendix A.
2 Plaintiffs’ seventy-five-page complaint “consist[s] almost entirely of a recitation of
grievances and conspiracy theories concerning financial institutions and federal
regulators[,]” and includes not only “allegations with respect to entities and individuals
not named as Defendants,” but also “vague and conclusory assertions regarding the
activity of various mortgage lenders, and claims regarding actions undertaken by
Defendant FDIC in wholly unrelated matters[.]” (Id. at 5 (internal citations omitted).)
In Magistrate Judge Robinson’s view, these flaws in Plaintiffs’ pleading prevented
Defendants from “receiv[ing] fair notice of the claim[s] against them [,]” which is the
very problem that Rule 8’s “short and plain statement” requirement addresses. (See id.
at 4 (citing Terrell v. Mr. Cooper Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-0496, 2020 WL 4673420, at *3
(D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2020)).) And based on that finding, Magistrate Judge Robinson
concludes that Plaintiffs’ complaint must be dismissed. (See id. at 7; see also id. at 4
(explaining that a court “may dismiss the pleading or the action” if “a complaint fails to
comport with the standards of Rule 8” (quoting Terrell, 2020 WL 4673420, at *3)).)
In addition to articulating these findings and conclusions, Magistrate Judge
Robinson’s Report and Recommendation also advises the parties that they may file
written objections to the Report and Recommendation, which must include “the portions
of the findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis of each
such objection.” (See id. at 7.) The Report and Recommendation also advises the
parties that “[i]n the absence of timely objections, further review of issues addressed [in
the Report and Recommendation] may be deemed waived.” (Id.) Under this Court’s
local rules, any party who objects to a Report and Recommendation must file a written
objection with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of the Report
3 and Recommendation. LCvR 72.3(b). The due date for objections has passed, and the
parties have not filed any objections.
This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Robinson’s report and agrees with its
legal analysis and conclusions. Therefore, the Court will ADOPT the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, as set forth in the separate Order that
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos.
58, 61, 66, and 81) will be GRANTED. Furthermore, to the extent that not all of the
defendants in this action have filed or joined these motions to dismiss, this Court
further finds that Plaintiffs’ claims with respect to those defendants are also
insufficiently pled, see Fontaine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 42 F. Supp. 3d 102,
107 (D.D.C. 2014) (explaining that courts may dismiss a comp laint sua sponte for
failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8), and thus Plaintiffs’ entire
Complaint, ECF No. 1, will be DISMISSED without prejudice.
DATE: September 30, 2020 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge
4 Appendix A
M. NAWAZ RAJA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 16-511 KBJ/DAR FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs M. Nawaz and Neelum Nawaz Raja commenced this action by filing a seventy-
five-page, 447-paragraph Complaint. Complaint (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs named as Defendants
venteen entities which appear
to be financial institutions who are subsidiaries thereof, and an individual identified as an officer
of one such entity.
Plaintiffs, in the first paragraph of their Complaint, state that s under
the [Federal Deposit Insurance] A
Id.1 Plaintiffs account of the events
preceding the challenged actions of the FDIC begins in the thirty-ninth paragraph of their
Complaint, where they assert that in 2006, they refinanced their home loan with Indy Mac Bank. 2
1 See also Complaint, ¶¶ 28-34. 2 See also id., ¶¶ 40-44, 46. Plaintiffs make further allegations regarding the mortgagor, as well as the entities which subsequently became involved in the funding, assignment, reassignment, and servicing of the loan. See id., ¶¶ 49- 62, 65-86, 110-14, 119-23, 133-34, 182-199, 377-78, 381-82. of the financial institutions named as Defendants. See id., ¶¶ 168-181, 398-99, 404-08. Additionally, Plaintiffs complain about the bankruptcy proceeding undertaken by one of the financial institutions named as a Defendant. See id., ¶¶ 242-61. Finally, Plaintiffs allege fraud by the FDIC and several of the financial institutions named as Defendants. See id., ¶¶ 278-352, 421-47. Appendix A Raja, et al. v. FDIC, et al.
Plaintiffs appear to allege that subsequent efforts by other entities named as Defendants to
foreclose on the property were flawed. See id., ¶¶ 87-106, 200-14. Plaintiffs also make
allegations concerning the manner in which the 2006 refinancing was consummated. See id., ¶¶
262-77.
Plaintiffs reside in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the property which is the subject
of their Complaint is the home in which they reside in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The undersigned, as well as the referring court, beginning in May 2017, undertook
extensive consideration of the status of service of process upon the named Defendants. See, e.g.,
05/25/2017 Minute Order; Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 44); Memorandum Opinion
and Order (ECF No. 56); Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 97). This consideration
culminated in the dismissal of IMB Holdco, LLC and Indy Mac Ventures, LLC as Defendants
for Plaintiffs failure to effect service upon them in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure and the referring court [56] Memorandum Opinion and Order. 3
Four motions to dismiss have been filed by the remaining Defendants:
1) Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 58) filed by Defendants MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., Merscorp Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank AG, and Deutsche Bank Securities.
2) by Defendants IndyMac ABS, Inc. and IndyMac MDS, Inc.
3) Defendants CIT Bank, N.A., OneWest Bank N.A., and IndyMac
No. 66) filed by CIT Bank, N.A., OneWest Bank N.A., and IndyMac Mortgage Services.
4) No. 81) filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
3 The individual who was named as a Defendant was never served and did not appear for the limited purpose of contesting service. Indy Mac Indx 2006-AR8, one of the entities named as a Defendant, similarly was never served and did not appear for the limited purpose of contesting service.
2 Appendix A Raja, et al. v. FDIC, et al.
The remaining Defendants, in these motions, rely upon multiple grounds in support of
their respective motions. 4 Common to each of the four motions to dismiss is the ground that
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to each of the four motions to dismiss. In each opposition,
Plaintiffs incorporate the representations which they included in their Complaint and suggest that
this Court should permit them to take discovery. With respect to the arguments of all Defendants
regarding
undertake no effort to provide a more definite statement of their claims. 5
Defendants filed replies (ECF Nos. 78, 79, 80, 89) to the respective oppositions.
Plaintiffs, without first securing leave of the Court to do so, filed a surreply to each reply (ECF
Nos. 83, 84, 85, 90).
4 Among these grounds are arguments that because Plaintiffs previously and unsuccessfully litigated the same claims presented in the instant action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, their claims are barred by res judicata and issue preclusion. See, e.g., Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 58-2) at 2. The record in the instant action includes (1) the order of a District Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice, denying their motion for reconsideration, and imposing sanctions; (2) the opinion of a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the enying Plaintiffs petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc, and (4) the mandate of the Fourth Circuit. Notice of Filing (ECF No. 18). Plaintiffs certiorari was denied. Notice of Related Proceedings (ECF No. 30). 5 See, e.g., Verified Complaint (ECF No. 72) at 8, 25-26; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank A.G. and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Verified Complaint (ECF No. 73) at 10-11, 30-33;
(ECF No. 76) at 18-25; (ECF No. 87) at 35-40.
3 Appendix A Raja, et al. v. FDIC, et al.
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, the undersigned will recommend that each
of the four motions to dismiss be granted on the grou
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6
DISCUSSION
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that
pleading that states a claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement of the claim
This Court, just over two
weeks ago, characterized the Rule 8 requirement, including the requirement of Rule 8(d)(1) that
c
Terrell v.
Mr. Cooper Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-0496, 2020 WL 4673420, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 12,
2020) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The Court further noted
complaint that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant
and confusing material does not meet the R Id. (citation
omitted). The C if a complaint fails to comport with the standards of Rule 8,
Id. (citations omitted).
pro se litigant; however, pro se
Id.; see also Gassew v. Dept. of the
Treasury, Civil Action No. 20-01023, 2020 WL 2523178, at *1 (D.D.C. April 28, 2020) Pro se
Brock v.
Okla., Civil Action No. 19-03112, 2019 WL 6525625, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 04, 2019)
6 Given this recommendation, the undersigned has no occasion to consider herein other grounds, such as res judicata and issue preclusion, see supra n.4, which also may warrant dismissal.
4 Appendix A Raja, et al. v. FDIC, et al.
a pro se s s drafted by
pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil P
(quoting Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987)).
The undersigned finds that Plaintiffs mandates
8. In reaching this finding, the undersigned has considered, but does not exclusively rely upon,
obser
conspiracy theories concerning financial institutions and federal regulators. For example,
Plaintiffs allege, with respect to one of the entities they name as a Defendant,
of [the entity] say so, does not make what has happened here morally, ethically, or politically
see also id
what appears to be a criminal enterprise of RICO-style document manufacturing for purposes of
-proclaimed authority that is at best
entities and individuals not named
as Defendants, see, e.g., id. at 22, n.19; vague and conclusory assertions regarding the activity of
various mortgage lenders, see, e.g., id. at 23-24, 47-49, and claims regarding actions undertaken
by Defendant FDIC in wholly unrelated matters, see, e.g., id. at 29 n.28, 49-54. Among the
239. The most recent U.S. bubble and resultant financial crisis and Great Recession were driven by three epidemics of fraud led by elite banker (collectively, loan origination frauds by IndyMac, Lehman Brothers and DBNTC et al in a joint venture), and 3) resale of such
and warrant
Id. at 40.
5 Appendix A Raja, et al. v. FDIC, et al.
The undersigned is mindful that Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se
assessment of their compliance with Rule 8. However,
Eastern District of Virginia, and the Fourth Circuit, that they were expected to confine their
n statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief. See, e.g., Notice of Filing (ECF No. 18). 7
The undersigned does not doubt that Plaintiffs feel strongly about the events
contemporaneous with and subsequent to the refinancing of their home, and, more broadly, the
various regulations affecting the home mortgage industry. However, their passion does not
permit this Court to dispense with the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2).
7 Plaintiff motions, make no attempt to explain how their seventy-five-page, 447-paragraph Complaint constitutes a Instead, they simply state their disagreement contentions regarding Rule 8 See, e.g.,
Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint (ECF No. 76) at 20-25; see also supra n.5 and accompanying text.
6 Appendix A Raja, et al. v. FDIC, et al.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, it is this 31st day of August, 2020,
RECOMMENDED that each of the four pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 58, 61, 8 66, 81) be GRANTED
DEBORAH A. ROBINSON United States Magistrate Judge
Within fourteen days, any party may file written objections to this report and recommendation. The objections shall specifically identify the portions of the findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis of each such objection. In the absence of timely objections, further review of issues addressed herein may be deemed waived.
8 See supra n.6. In any event, the undersigned -- like the court in Terrell ... icata and statute of limitations Terrell, 2020 WL 4673420, at *4.