Washington v. Specialized Loan Servicing

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 22, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-3447
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARCUS WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:23-cv-03447

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Marcus Washington, a D.C. resident, sued Specialized Loan Servicing, a

financial institution, under claims of fraud and racketeering. Before the Court is Defendant’s

Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 27. Because Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

does not meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b), this Court

grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.1

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether the complaint “state[s] a claim upon which relief

can be granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The Court “must first tak[e] note of the elements a

plaintiff must plead to state [a] claim to relief, and then determine whether the plaintiff has

pleaded those elements with adequate factual support to state a claim to relief that is plausible on

1 Plaintiff initially sued Specialized Loan Servicing for violating various consumer protection laws. Dkt. 1. His Amended Complaint alleged similar violations of consumer protection laws. Dkt. 5. In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff dropped the consumer protection claims and brought only two claims: fraud and racketeering. Dkt. 21. His Second Amended Complaint named as Defendants not just Specialized Loan Servicing, but also an additional corporation, a limited liability company, and eighteen employees of the various companies sued. Id. Only Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing filed a Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 27. But because the reasons for dismissal apply equally to all Defendants, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 9(b). its face.” Blue v. District of Columbia, 811 F.3d 14, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). Mere

conclusions are insufficient to state a claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Rule 8(a) provides that a pleading “must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the

claim” showing that the court has jurisdiction and that the pleader is entitled to relief. FED. R.

CIV. P. 8(a). This rule aims to give fair notice to defendants of the asserted claims so that they

can file responsive pleadings and raise appropriate defenses. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D.

497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Under Rule 9(b), a party alleging fraud “must state with particularity the circumstances

constituting [the] fraud.” FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b). This rule “normally [] means that the pleader

must state the time, place and content of the false misrepresentations, the fact misrepresented and

what was obtained or given up as a consequence of the fraud.” United States v. Cannon, 642

F.2d 1373, 1385 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (cleaned up). However, the particularity requirement under

Rule 9(b) “does not abrogate Rule 8, and it should be harmonized with the general directives in

subdivisions (a) and (e) of Rule 8 that the pleadings should contain a short and plain statement of

the claim or defense and that each averment should be simple concise and direct.” Id. at 1386

(cleaned up).

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to satisfy any of these standards. Count One

alleges that Defendant LoanDepot.com engaged in some kind of fraudulent transaction. Dkt. 21

at 7. Though Plaintiff—very briefly—details a loan agreement he made with LoanDepot.com,

he merely argues, without providing any evidence, that LoanDepot.com violated 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1001, 1010, 1341, and 1343. Id. Indeed, Plaintiff’s entire “factual background” consists of

just four sentences and mentions Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing once. Id. Not only does

this not provide Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing or any other Defendant with notice as to the claims against them, but Plaintiff’s brief description wholly fails to “state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). Nor does

Plaintiff meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud claims, as he does not provide a single

detail required by Rule 9(b). Id.

Plaintiff’s second count fares no better. He incorporates the same four vague paragraphs

from Count One and simply adds that “[D]efendants, collectively, and each of them, conspired

with each other to further their ongoing business model in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961;

1962(d).” Id. Because none of Plaintiff’s claims are “meaningfully distinguished from bold

conclusions,” they “do[] not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8.” Webb v. Dep’t of Army, 2022

WL 17851470, at *1 (D.D.C. October 7, 2022). And since Rule 9(b) subjects allegations of

fraud to heightened scrutiny, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is undoubtedly deficient.

While the Court must construe a pro se complaint together with all the plaintiff’s filings,

see Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015), none of

Plaintiff’s filings bolster his threadbare allegations. See Dkts. 30, 32. Neither his Reply nor

Surreply to Defendant’s Motion supplements his Second Amended Complaint with any new

facts, much less enough facts to satisfy either Rule 8(a) or Rule 9(b). Id. And though courts

hold pro se litigants’ complaints to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), “even pro se litigants must comply with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Boone v. Schorr, 1999 WL 1029160, at *1 (D.D.C. May

25, 1999). Thus, even a lenient reading of Plaintiff’s Complaint cannot overcome the sheer lack

of facts alleged. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for

failure to comply with Rule 8(a) and Rule 9(b). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

This is a final appealable order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to

terminate this case.

Date: November 22, 2024 ____________________________ Ana C. Reyes United States District Judge