United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
SHEILA GREEN, AS A BENEFICIARY OF THE SUNSET TRACE TRUST, Plaintiff,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
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.
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.
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. 1-5 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).
of the Motion
contends that plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts
to state a claim that is plausible on its face.
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
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
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 ...