United States District Court, S.D. Florida
G. Torres, U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of record.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
G. COOKE United States District Judge.
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(“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
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
ECF No. 1-2. On June 21, 2005, Plaintiff executed a
quitclaim deed transferring title to the Property to Angela
Molina and Gustavo Mozo. 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.
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.
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 ...