Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-11951-IT
03-25-2022
JACQUES SAADE, Plaintiff, v. FAY SERVICING, LLC, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee of MFRA TRUST 2014-2, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS
Indira Talwani United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Jacques Saade brought this action against Defendants Fay Servicing, LLC, and Wilmington Trust, N.A. Compl. [Doc. No. 1]. Now before the court is Defendants' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs [Doc. No. 50]. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is DENIED without prejudice to raising such a claim in a separate action.
I. Background
This is Plaintiff's sixth action before this court asserting wrongful conduct by Defendants and their predecessors in interest, and was subject to a screening order. See Mem. & Order in No. 18-cv-11534, Doc. No.73, at 15 (D. Mass. May 13, 2019). Following screening, the court dismissed Claim 1 and directed Defendants to file “their answer or other response to Claims 2, 3 and 4 . . . .” See Order 4 [Doc. No. 18].
See Saade v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, et al., No. 15-cv-12275; Saade v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, et al., No. 15-cv-13611; Saade v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, et al., No. 16-cv-11982; Saade v. Wilmington Trust, National Association, et al., No. 18-cv-11534 and related case No. 18-cv-11873.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 19], which the court granted, thereby dismissing Plaintiff's remaining claims in this action. See Order [Doc. No. 38]. Defendants therefore were not called upon to answer the Complaint [Doc. No. 1] or file any counterclaims, see generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 13, and there is no responsive pleading on the docket.
II. The Pending Motion
Defendants ask the court to award their attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the terms of the subject mortgage agreement to which Plaintiff and Defendant Wilmington Trust are parties. Because Defendants have not filed a counter-claim raising this claim, the court lacks authority to address it now. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Fees [Doc. No. 50] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.