United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
TIMOTHY C. PLATT and SONIA E. PLATT, Plaintiffs,
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant.
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.
Presently pending before the Court is Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.'s ("Citi") Motion to Dismiss. [Filing No. 9.] For the reasons detailed herein, the Court GRANTS the motion.
In February 2010, Citi began foreclosure proceedings against pro se Plaintiffs Timothy and Sonia Platt in Indiana state court. [Filing No. 9-2 (Complaint on Note and to Foreclose Mortgage filed in CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Platt, No. 49D11-1002-MF-007224 (the "State Court Action")).] In response to Citi's Complaint in the State Court Action, the Platts counterclaimed that (1) Citi "repeatedly published libelous statements that defamed Mr. and Mrs. Platt's financial reputations;" (2) Citi's "libelous statements prevented Mr. [and] Mrs. Platt from being able to refinance their home;" and (3) Citi's foreclosure proceeding against Mr. and Mrs. Platt is part of "an elaborate plan... to embezzle federal taxpayer dollars [from the] FHA mortgage insurance policy associated with Mr. [and] Mrs. Platt's mortgage." [Filing No. 9-3 at 2-7.]
In 2011, the Platts attempted to remove the State Court Action to federal court. [ See Filing No. 9-5.] The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana remanded the case to the Marion County Superior Court for lack of federal jurisdiction. [Filing No. 9-6 (Entry and Order Accepting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Timothy C. Platt, Sonia E. Platt, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-1711-TWP-MJD).] Mr. and Mrs. Platt appealed the remand of the State Court Action to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, [Filing No. 9-7], and the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, [Filing No. 9-8].
On January 14, 2015, on remand from the District Court, the Marion Superior Court granted Citi's Motion for Summary Judgment on its claims and on the Platts' counterclaims. [Filing No. 9-4.]
On December 22, 2014, while awaiting a ruling on Citi's Motion for Summary Judgment in the State Court Action, the Platts filed the instant lawsuit. [Filing No. 1.] The Platts assert three claims against Citi: (1) for libel, alleging that Citi "has defamed [their] reputations by recording incorrect information on their Credit Reports"; (2) for "engag[ing] in an insurance scam to defraud the United States of money" and using "fraudulent documents from that insurance scam" against the Platts; and (3) for failing to provide the Platts with "any of the FHA foreclosure avoidance programs available through the U.S. Treasury Dept. and HUD." [Filing No. 1 at 2-4.]
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint provide the defendant with "fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which is rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1977, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must accept all well-pled facts as true and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Active Disposal Inc. v. City of Darien, 635 F.3d 883, 886 (7th Cir. 2011). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The Court will not accept legal conclusions or conclusory allegations as sufficient to state a claim for relief. See McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 617 (7th Cir. 2011). Factual allegations must plausibly state an ...