Summary
adopting reasoning and conclusions in Poblete v. Goldberg, 680 F.Supp.2d 18 (D.D.C. Dec. 29, 2009)
Summary of this case from Cooke v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc.Opinion
C.A. No. K09C-11-038 JTV.
Submitted: August 20, 2010.
Decided: December 9, 2010.
Upon Consideration of Defendant Chestnut Run's Motion For Summary Judgment and Defendant Bank of America's Motion For Summary Judgment. GRANTED.
Barbara Cooke, Clayton, Delaware. Pro Se.
Thomas D. H. Barnett, Esq., Atlantic Law Group, LLC, Georgetown, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant Bank of America.
Any D. Brown, Esq., Margolis Edelstein, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Chestnut Run Federal Credit Union.
ORDER
Upon consideration of a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant Chestnut Run Federal Credit Union and a Motion to Dismiss the complaint filed by defendant Bank of America, the plaintiff's opposition thereto, and the record of the case, it appears that:
1. There is one plaintiff in this case, Barbara Cooke. David-Jackson Cooke was formerly named as a plaintiff, but he has previously been dismissed from the case by the Court.
2. There are two defendants. One is Chestnut Run Federal Credit Union . The other is Bank of America . It appears that BOA is a successor to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Chestnut has moved for summary judgment. BOA has moved to dismiss the complaint. Both motions rely upon Rule 56. Both motions are, therefore, motions for summary judgment.
3. The complaint is filed as a Debt/Breach of Contract case. The complaint's title is "Plaintiff's Petition for Relief and for Court to Compel Defendants to Produce and Comply with Plaintiff's Demands." The prayer of the complaint reads as follows:
THEREFORE
Plaintiff hereby respectfully demands the court:
1. Compel Defendants to produce and to comply and to disclose according to Plaintiff's "Nice Offer and Demands (EXHIBIT A, B) or to give Plaintiffs a valid "Full Deed of Release."
2. Compel Defendant Chestnut Run Federal Credit Union, to restore full access to above mentioned checking account and return all unlawfully transferred funds.
4. The "Nice Offer and Demands" is substantially longer than the petition. I take the "Nice Offer and Demands" to be the main part of the complaint. In the "Nice Offer and Demands," the plaintiff denies that a certain debt is her debt, or a valid debt; denies the amount allegedly owed on said debt; offers to fully pay or discharge said debt on certain conditions; requests that the defendants produce certain documents for inspection and copying relating to the plaintiff's alleged mortgage transaction and mortgage account; requests many other business records of the defendants, including records of government investigations of the defendants; makes certain demands under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act; and makes other requests and demands.
5. The defendants have brought to the Court's attention an unreported opinion from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in a case captioned Luis Ivan Poblete v. L. Darren Goldberg, et al., C.A. 09-01742 (HHK). That case involved a complaint which seems to be substantially the same, if not substantially identical, to the complaint in this case. Like this case, the complaint contained a "Nice Offer and Demands." The introductory paragraph of the "Nice Offer and Demands" in Poblete is identical to the introductory paragraph of the "Nice Offer and Demands" in this case. A careful review of the "Nice Offer and Demands" in this case and a comparison of the description of that document in Poblete leads to the conclusion that the "Nice Offer and Demands" in Poblete and the "Nice Offer and Demands" in this case are the same or substantially the same, if not identical.
6. The standard of review for summary judgment is set forth in Superior Court Civil Rule 56 and need not be restated here.
7. After considering the plaintiff's complaint, including the "Nice Offer and Demands," I have concluded that the reasoning and conclusions in Poblete are directly applicable to the complaint in this case, and I adopt such reasoning and conclusions. A copy of the Poblete decision is attached.
8. Although the motions in Poblete were motions to dismiss, I find that the analysis in Poblete is equally applicable to the motions for summary judgment which are before the Court now
9. Having adopted the reasoning and conclusions in Poblete as my reasoning and conclusions in this case, the defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are granted .
IT IS SO ORDERED.