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.

Contreras v. Aurora Loan Services LLC

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

June 21, 2017

MARIE CONTRERAS, Plaintiff,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, Defendants.

          Edwin G. Torres, U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of record.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          MARCIA G. COOKE United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Marie Contreras (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought an action in Florida state court against Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC a/k/a Nationstar Mortgage, LLC[1](“Defendant”), alleging a quiet title claim and several other state causes of action. Defendant timely removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See Aurora Loan Services LLC's Notice of Removal (“Notice of Removal”), ECF No. 1. In response to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (“Motion”) (ECF No. 11), essentially arguing that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed her Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (“Response”) (ECF No. 15), to which Defendant filed its Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint (“Reply”) (ECF No. 17). In response to Defendant's Reply, Plaintiff filed another Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) which is identical to her initial Response (ECF No. 15). After reviewing Defendants' Motion, the Response and Reply thereto, the record, and relevant legal authorities, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint is granted.

         I. BACKGROUND

         According to Plaintiff's Complaint, she took title to a property located at 338 Falcon Avenue, Miami Springs, FL 33166 (“Property”) via a warranty deed executed on May 31, 2005. Compl. ¶11, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-2. The warranty deed was recorded in the Official Records Book 23600, Page 1860 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida on July 22, 2005 and described the Property with the following:

The East 40 feet of Lot 18 and all of Lot 19, Block 58, CINEMA PARK ADDITION TO COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 17, at Page 2, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
a/k/a 338 Falcon Avenue, Miami Springs, Florida 33166
Parcel Identification Number: 05-3118-016-1740

         Ex. A, ECF No. 1-2. On June 21, 2005, Plaintiff executed a quitclaim deed transferring title to the Property to Angela Molina and Gustavo Mozo[2]. Compl. ¶14, Ex. C, ECF No. 1-2. The quitclaim deed, recorded in the Official Records Book 24229, Page 996 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida on February 10, 2006, described the Property as:

CINEMA PARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTS ADDN PB 17-2 338 Falcon AVE, Miami Springs, FL 33166 FOLIO: 05-3118-016-1740

Ex. C, ECF No. 1-2. Angela Molina obtained a mortgage loan for the Property with a Mortgage Instrument dated March 7, 2007. See Compl. ¶15, Ex. B, ECF No. 1-2. Ms. Molina defaulted on her loan payments, a foreclosure action was filed where Plaintiff was not named as a party, and a foreclosure auction was held on January 9, 2013. Compl. ¶¶16, 17, 19, ECF No. 1-2. Defendant was awarded a Certificate of Title to the Property on June 21, 2013. Compl. ¶19, ECF No. 1-2.

         Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida on October 18, 2016. Defendant removed the case to federal court on November 21, 2016 on the basis of “diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441(b) because [P]laintiff Marie Contreras (Contreras) is completely diverse from the defendants named in this action and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00.” Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff's Complaint raises four causes of action: Quiet Title (Count I); Wrongful Foreclosure (Count II); Negligence (Count III); Intentional Misrepresentation (Count IV); and Unjust Enrichment (Count V). Compl., ECF No. 1-2. At the heart of Plaintiff's Complaint is the belief the quitclaim deed did not legally convey the Property to Ms. Molina and, as a result, Plaintiff has been the legal titleholder to the Property since the warranty deed was executed, including when Ms. Molina obtained a mortgage, when the Property was foreclosed on, and when it was sold at the foreclosure auction.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         In its Motion, Defendant does not identify under which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure they are requesting to dismiss the instant action nor which standard of review should be applied to review of the Complaint; Defendant merely claims that Plaintiff's legal arguments fail and “all claims must be dismissed with prejudice.” Motion, 4, ECF No. 11. Defendant's Reply states Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed for “failure to state any viable claims.” Reply, 1, ECF No. 17. However, after careful consideration of the Complaint (ECF No. 1-2), Motion (ECF No. 11), Response (ECF No. 15), and Reply (ECF No. 17), and as discussed in more detail ...


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.