United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s (Wells
Fargo) motion to dismiss. Doc. 12. For the reasons that
follow, the Court GRANTS Wells Fargo's
a foreclosure case. In July 2015, Plaintiffs Jason and Cheryl
Douglas purchased their home. Doc. 8, Pls.' First Am.
Compl., ¶¶ 8-9. In connection with their purchase,
the Douglases executed a note for $415, 266 and an
accompanying deed. Id. Wells Fargo holds the note
and the deed. Id. ¶ 10.
Douglases contacted Wells Fargo to set up automatic payments
in September 2016. Id. ¶ 11. Payments were
automatically withdrawn from the Douglases' bank account
in September and October. Id. But the Douglases
failed to pay their mortgage from November 2016 to January
January 17, 2017, Wells Fargo informed the Douglases in a
letter that their payments were past due. Id. ¶
12. Nevertheless, the Douglases did not make past-due
payments and failed to pay their mortgage in February and
March. Id. ¶ 11. On March 3, 2017, Wells Fargo
sent another letter stating that the Douglases' payments
were past due. Id. ¶ 13. After receiving the
second letter, the Douglases called Wells Fargo and asked
whether they could make a $14, 000 payment over the phone.
Id. ¶ 14. A Wells Fargo representative agreed
to accept the payment, but the Douglases do not allege that
their payment ever went through. Id.
March 13, 2017, Wells Fargo sent an escrow shortage letter
notifying the Douglases that their May 2017 mortgage payment
would increase to $3199.86 and that no further action was
required from them. Id. ¶ 15. The Douglases
thought that their loan was no longer delinquent based on the
representative's willingness to accept the $14, 000
payment and the escrow shortage letter's indication that
no action was required. Id. But on May 2, 2017, a
substitute trustee sold the Douglases' home at a
foreclosure sale. Id. ¶ 16.
August 2017, the Douglases filed suit in Texas state court.
The case was removed to this Court shortly thereafter. Doc.
1. That October, Wells Fargo filed the present motion to
dismiss, which is ripe for consideration. Doc. 12.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the court to dismiss
a plaintiff's complaint for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.” In considering
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[t]he court accepts
all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.” In re Katrina
Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.
2007). The court will “not look beyond the face of the
pleadings to determine whether relief should be granted based
on the alleged facts.” Spivey v. Robertson,
197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999).
survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. “The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Id. When well-pleaded facts fail to achieve this
plausibility standard, “the complaint has alleged-but
it has not shown-that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Id. at 679 (internal quotation marks
and alterations omitted).