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.

Green v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

May 30, 2017

SHEILA GREEN, AS A BENEFICIARY OF THE SUNSET TRACE TRUST, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

         Came on for consideration the motion of defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to dismiss. Plaintiff, Sheila Green, as beneficiary of the Sunset Trace Trust, has failed to respond to the motion, which is ripe for ruling. The court, having considered the motion, the record, and applicable authorities, finds that the motion should be granted.

         I.

         Background

         On March 31, 2017, plaintiff filed her original petition in the 348th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, purporting to assert a cause of action for equitable right of redemption. On April 28, 2017, defendant filed its notice of removal, bringing the action before this court.

         In her petition, plaintiff alleges that she is a beneficiary of a land trust that acquired an interest in property located at 8845 Sunset Trace Drive, Keller, Texas. She says that she has an equitable interest in the property that, as a junior lienholder, she will lose when defendant forecloses its lien. She says that she filed the case "as the means to assert her equity of redemption prior to [an] upcoming foreclosure sale." Doc.[1] 1-5 at ¶ 14. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order. The state court papers reflect that a temporary restraining order was granted, but that the hearing on injunctive relief was cancelled. Doc. 1-4 (page 3 of 3).

         II.

         Ground of the Motion

         Defendant contends that plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.

         III.

         Applicable Legal Principles

         Rule 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. .Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) ("While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.").

         Moreover, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the facts pleaded must allow the court to infer that the plaintiff's right to relief is plausible. Iqbal, 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." Id.

         As the Fifth Circuit has explained: "Where the complaint is devoid of facts that would put the defendant on notice as to what conduct supports the claims, the complaint fails to satisfy the requirement of notice pleading." Anderson v. U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., 554 F.3d 525, 528 (5th Cir. 2008). In sum, "a complaint must do more than name laws that may have been violated by the defendant; it must also allege facts regarding what conduct violated those laws. In other words, a ...


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.