United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MCBRYDE DISTRICT JUDGE
for consideration the motion of defendant, Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Plaintiffs, Luz and Walter Ventura,
filed a response to which defendant replied. Having
considered the motion, the response, the reply,
plaintiffs' original petition, and applicable legal
authorities, the court concludes that defendant's motion
should be granted.
asserted four claims against defendant: (1) breach of
contract, (2} quiet title, (3} declaratory judgment, and (4)
permanent injunction. The breach of contract claim arose from
claimed defects in a home equity lien executed between
plaintiffs and defendant that allegedly fails to comply with
section 50(a)(6) of the Texas Constitution. Specifically,
plaintiffs asserted that the home equity lien was
(a) [plaintiffs]did not receive a copy of the final loan
documents; (b) an appraisal report was not prepared; (c)
[plaintiffs] did not receive an acknowledgemet of the
three-day right to rescind document; and (d) [defendant]
failed to properly acknowledge the fair market value on the
day the extension of credit was made.
at Ex, D, ¶ 1. Also, plaintiffs alleged that
defendant clouded plaintiffs' title to the property
secured by the home equity lien by claiming a valid lien and
the power to foreclose on the property. Plaintiffs sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, and prayed that defendant
forfeit all principal and interest owed and reimburse
plaintiffs for all previous payments made.
of the Motion to Dismiss
moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Specifically,
defendant argued that plaintiffs' breach of contract
claim is barred by the applicable four-year statute of
limitations. Regardless of limitations, defendant asserted
that the breach of contract claim should otherwise be
dismissed because each of the alleged violations of the Texas
Constitution fails as a matter of law. Defendant also
contended that plaintiffs' quiet title claim fails
because the claim is not based on the strength of
plaintiffs' title to the property, but instead is based
on the alleged weakness of defendant's title. Finally,
defendant argued that plaintiffs' requests for
declaratory and injunctive relief should be dismissed, as
such requests are dependant upon the assertion of a viable
cause of action.
Applicable Pleading Principles
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in
a general way, the applicable standard of pleading. It
requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, " Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), "in order to
give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests, " Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007} (internal quotation
marks and ellipsis omitted). Although a complaint need not
contain detailed factual allegations, the "showing"
contemplated by Rule 8 requires the plaintiff to do more than
simply allege legal conclusions or recite the elements of a
cause of action. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 & n.3.
Thus, while a court must accept all of the factual
allegations in the complaint as true, it need not credit bare
legal conclusions that are unsupported by any factual
underpinnings. See Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662,
679 (2009) ("While legal conclusions can provide the
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, the facts pleaded must
allow the court to infer that the plaintiff's right to
relief is plausible. Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678. To
allege a plausible right to relief, the facts pleaded must
suggest liability; allegations that are merely consistent
with unlawful conduct are insufficient. Id. In other
words, where the facts pleaded do no more than permit the
court to infer the possibility of misconduct, the complaint
has not shown that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Id. at 679. "Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
when a successful affirmative defense such as limitations is
apparent on the face of the pleadings, dismissal is
appropriate on that ground. Kansa, Reinsurance Co.
v. Cong. Mo ...