Opinion
Case No.: 8:15-cv-1706-T-33TGW
08-26-2015
JAMES M. SIMS and DARLENE SIMS, Plaintiffs, v. NATION STAR MORTGAGE; BANK OF AMERICA, NA; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED TRUST FREDDIE MAC MULTICLASS CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2973; and FREDDIE MAC, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. As explained below, the Court dismisses the case based on Plaintiffs' failure to file an amended complaint. Discussion
On July 21, 2015, pro se Plaintiffs James and Darlene Sims filed a 31-page, 143 paragraph Complaint against various Defendants regarding the foreclosure of their Parrish, Florida residence. (Doc. # 1). The Complaint contained the following ten counts: (1) Lack of Standing/Wrongful Foreclosure; (2) Fraud in the Concealment; (3) Fraud in the Inducement; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Slander of Title; (6) Quiet Title; (7) Declaratory Relief; (8) Violation of TILA and HOEPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1601; (9) Violation of RESPA, 1 U.S.C. § 2601; and (10) Rescission. (Id.). In each Complaint count, Plaintiffs "re-allege[d]" and "incorporate[d] by reference all preceding paragraphs." (Id. at ¶¶ 53, 66, 75, 83, 94, 110, 122, 132, 139).
Although the Complaint was organized into numbered paragraphs, Plaintiffs failed to specify which of the Complaint counts were asserted against the various Defendants. In addition, despite its voluminous nature, the Complaint did not provide relevant details regarding the mortgage transaction at issue. Rather, the Complaint described the financial crash of 2008-2009 and the manner in which various loans are securitized by "Wall Street and other firms." (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16). Also, the Complaint contained unintelligible charts and depictions, which did not have any bearing on Plaintiffs' claims against any named Defendant. Similar to the complaint filed in Metellus v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 1:12-cv-1947, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186980, at *7 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2012), "Plaintiffs' complaint appears to have been cut and pasted from a number of form complaints (presumably obtained off the internet) previously filed by borrowers against their lenders in this court in order to forestall the foreclosure process."
After carefully examining Plaintiffs' Complaint and construing it liberally, the Court entered an Order striking the Complaint. (Doc. # 8). The Court found that the Complaint was an impermissible shotgun complaint, and that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, the Court authorized Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on or before August 24, 2015. (Id.). The Court warned Plaintiffs that their failure to file an amended complaint would lead to the dismissal of the action. (Id.). Plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint. The Court accordingly dismisses this case.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 26th day of August, 2015.
/s/_________
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties and Counsel of Record