United States District Court, N.D. Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
McBRYDE United States District Judge.
for consideration the motions of (1) defendants Judge Fite
and Beverly McDonald (together, "Judge Fite"),
(2}Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP
("Barrett Daffin"), (3} Codilis & Stawiarski,
P.C., and Sarah Cox (together, "Codilis"), and (4)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") to dismiss.
Plaintiffs, Keisha Duke and Keenan Duke, have failed to
respond to the motions, which are ripe for ruling. The court,
having considered the motions, the record, and applicable
authorities, finds that the motions should be granted.
December 12, 2017, plaintiffs filed a document titled
"Claim" that has been docketed as their complaint.
1. The complaint itself comprises seven pages and has 115
pages of exhibits attached. The causes of action are
identified as trespass, uttering a forged instrument, fraud,
conspiracy against rights, unjust enrichment, mail fraud, and
"facts of the case" section of the document
alleges: On August 9, 2006, Keenan and Claire Duke acquired
property at 5924 Walden Trail, Arlington, Texas. In 2012,
Keenan fell ill and transferred full ownership of the
property to Keisha (who calls herself
"Prosecutor"}. Keenan and Claire have no record of
having received a loan from Wells Fargo, so they stopped
paying. Wells Fargo identified itself as servicer and owner
of a note and then, as debt collector, threatened to
foreclose in May 2014. Wells Fargo provided a a copy of a
Texas Home Equity Note and Texas Equity Deed of Trust, but
plaintiffs do not believe these are valid documents. Barrett
Daffin, as debt collector, sent a notice of foreclosure
signed by Felecia Clark. Fay Servicing sent a notice claiming
to be the new servicer. Judge Fite sent materials saying that
it had been hired to market the property. Codilis sent a
notice to vacate the property, stating that its client had
purchased the property at foreclosure sale on November 7,
2017. Doc. 1.
seek to recover $40, 787, 800.00 and other equitable relief.
Doc. 1 at 7.
of the Motions
Fite urges that plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts to
support a cause of action against it.
Daffin and Codilis likewise urge that plaintiffs have failed
to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible cause of
action against them. They additionally urge that they are
entitled to attorney immunity as they have been sued solely
as counsel representing clients.
Fargo urges a number of grounds in support of its motion,
among them that plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient
facts to state a claim against it and also that
plaintiffs' claims are barred by res judicata
based on an earlier action before the court.