Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dietrich v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

January 5, 2017

Edgar J. Dietrich, Plaintiff,
v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A., Defendant.

          Elizabeth A. Stafford United States Magistrate Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND [9], DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [10], AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [13]

          Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff, Edgar Julian Dietrich, commenced this foreclosure case in Wayne County Circuit Court on or about September 27, 2016. Dkt. No. 1-2, p. 3 (Pg. ID No. 12). The case was properly removed to this Court on October 5, 2016 based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1, p. 3 (Pg. ID No. 3). Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan and Defendant Chase Bank is a citizen of Ohio, and thus complete diversity exists. Id. at 3-4. Additionally, the value of the object that is the subject matter of the action, which seeks injunctive relief, is valued in excess of $75, 000.00. Id. at 5-6.

         The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by December 22, 2016 why this new case is not frivolous, duplicative, or harassing, because the Court enjoined Plaintiff from filing new cases without permission in July 2016. Dkt. No. 14; Dietrich v. Patti, No. CV 16-11469, 2016 WL 3682957, at *4-5 (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2016). Plaintiff's answer was not received by the Court until December 28, 2016, with a postmark of December 21, 2016. Dkt. No. 15. Plaintiff submitted what appears to be an identical copy of his prior response to the order to show cause on January 4, 2017. Dkt. No. 16.

         Presently before the Court are three motions, two of which were filed by Plaintiff and one filed by Defendant. Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant on December 7, 2016. Dkt. No. 13. Upon review of the pleadings, the Court finds that oral argument will not aid in the disposition of this matter. Accordingly, the Court will decide the matter on the submitted brief. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2).

         For the reasons stated below, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Return the Case to the District Court or in the Alternative to Issue a Preliminary Injunction to Preserve the Status Quo [9], interpreted as a motion for remand; DENY Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [10]; and GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [13].

         II. Factual Background

         On March 28, 2003, Edgar Jason Dietrich, Plaintiff's son, (hereinafter “Jason, ” to distinguish him from Plaintiff) purchased the real property located at 15830 Wind Mill Pointe, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan (the “Property”) with a $161, 250.00 loan (the “Loan”) from Washington Mutual Bank, FA. Dkt. No. 13-2, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 374). Jason's obligation to repay the Loan was evidenced by a note (“Note”), which was secured by a mortgage (“Mortgage”) on the Property. Dkt. No. 13-3, pp. 2-26 (Pg. ID No. 377-401). Jason is listed as the sole owner on the deed. See Dkt. No. 13-2, Dkt. No. 13-4. Washington Mutual Bank assigned the Mortgage to Defendant Chase Bank on July 11, 2016. Dkt. No. 13-5.

         The terms of the Loan were defaulted upon connection with an Adversary Proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 15-04807-mbm. Defendant Chase Bank began foreclosure by advertisement proceedings (the “Foreclosure”), which has since been placed on hold. Dkt. No. 13, p. 11 (Pg. ID No. 359).

         III. Law & Analysis 1. Motion to Dismiss

         Plaintiff's Complaint seeks an Order enjoining the foreclosure and monetary relief, and the following contains eight (8) counts: (1) Wrongful Foreclosure; (2) Fraud; (3) Negligence; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (6) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Duty; (7) Unjust Enrichment; and (8) Slander of Title. See Dkt. No. 1-2.

         Defendants bring this motion pursuant to both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)-for lack of subject matter jurisdiction-and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)-for failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 13.

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.