Paz v. Bank of America, N.A.

          ORDER

          VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 34), filed on March 28, 2018. Plaintiff Rafael Paz filed his response in opposition on April 12, 2018. (Doc. # 35). The Amended Complaint, (Doc. # 25), represents Plaintiff's fourth attempt at pleading in this case. For the reasons below, the Court grants Bank of America's Motion to Dismiss in part and denies in part. Finding that leave to amend at this juncture would be futile, Plaintiff may not file a second amended complaint.

         I. Background

         On June 27, 2017, over 70 Plaintiffs sued Bank of America in one action in the Middle District of Florida. Torres, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 8:17-cv-1534, (M. D. Fla. June 27, 2017), Doc. # 1. Plaintiff Rafael Paz was one of the many Plaintiffs in the original lawsuit. Plaintiffs alleged Bank of America (BOA) committed common law fraud in its administration of the Home Affordable Modification Program. HAMP was implemented by the Federal Government in March of 2009, to help homeowners facing foreclosure. (Doc. # 25 at ¶ 9). BOA entered into a Servicer Participation Agreement with the Federal Government in which BOA was required to use reasonable efforts to effectuate any modification of a mortgage loan under HAMP. (Id. at ¶ 10). The Federal Government, in exchange for BOA's participation in HAMP, agreed to compensate BOA for part of the loss attributable to each modification. (Id. at ¶ 11). Plaintiffs' claims were all based on their attempts to secure a loan modification with BOA under HAMP.

         In the original lawsuit, BOA filed a Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), (Torres Doc. # 12), and Plaintiffs amended their complaint. (Torres Doc. # 16). Following BOA's second Motion to Dismiss, (Torres Doc. # 17), the presiding judge severed the claims and required Plaintiffs to sue separately. (Torres Doc. # 19). Plaintiff Rafael Paz filed a separate complaint on November 3, 2017. (Doc. # 1). Three months later, on March 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 25). Thus, the operative complaint in this matter is Plaintiff's fourth attempt to properly plead his cause of action.

         The Amended Complaint alleges BOA committed four fraudulent acts: (1) falsely telling Plaintiff that “he can't be current on his mortgage to qualify for a HAMP loan modification” and failing to tell Plaintiff that he could qualify for HAMP if default was reasonably foreseeable (“HAMP Eligibility Claim”); (2) falsely telling Plaintiff the requested supporting financial documents Plaintiff had submitted to BOA were missing (“Supporting Documents Claim”); (3) falsely telling Plaintiff that he was approved for a HAMP modification and needed to start making trial payments (“HAMP Approval Claim”); and (4) fraudulently omitting how inspection fees charged to Plaintiff's account would be applied (“Inspection Fee Claim”). (Doc. # 25 at ¶¶ 38, 41, 48, 55).

         In its Motion to Dismiss, BOA argues that Plaintiff's fraud claims are barred by the statute of limitations and banking statute of frauds. (Doc. # 34 at 6, 11). BOA also contends that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint violates Rule 9(b) by failing to allege circumstances constituting fraud with sufficient particularity. (Id. at 14). These arguments are addressed in turn.

         II. Legal Standard

         On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this Court accepts as true all the allegations in the Complaint and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jackson v. Bellsouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004). Further, the Court favors the plaintiff with all reasonable inferences from the allegations in the Complaint. Stephens v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11th Cir. 1990) (“On a motion to dismiss, the facts stated in [the] complaint and all reasonable inferences therefrom are taken as true.”). However, the Supreme Court explains that:

While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted). In addition, courts are not “bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). Furthermore, “[t]hreadbare 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).

         Generally, “[t]he scope of review must be limited to the four corners of the complaint.” St. George v. Pinellas Cty., 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002). “There is an exception, however, to this general rule. In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the district court may consider an extrinsic document if it is (1) central to the plaintiff's claim, and (2) its authenticity is not challenged.” SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2010).

         III. Analysis

         A. Statute ...