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.

Duke v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas

March 2, 2018

KEISHA DUKE, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. BANK N.A. ET AL., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN McBRYDE United States District Judge.

         Came on 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.

         I.

         Background

         On December 12, 2017, plaintiffs filed a document titled "Claim" that has been docketed as their complaint. Doc.[1] 1. The complaint itself comprises seven pages and has 115 pages of exhibits attached.[2] The causes of action are identified as trespass, uttering a forged instrument, fraud, conspiracy against rights, unjust enrichment, mail fraud, and falsifying documents.

         The "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.

         Plaintiffs seek to recover $40, 787, 800.00 and other equitable relief. Doc. 1 at 7.

         II.

         Grounds of the Motions

         Judge Fite urges that plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts to support a cause of action against it.

         Barrett 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.

         Wells 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.

         III.

         Applicable ...


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.