United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
L. Miller, Jr., United States District Court Judge
Saunders filed a pro se complaint alleging various
federal and state law causes of action against Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and U.S. Bank National Association
stemming from what she describes as a wrongful foreclosure.
After the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing Ms.
Saunders's state law claims, the defendants moved for
judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c), arguing that the remaining regulatory claims
fail as a matter of law because there is no private right of
action to enforce them. [Doc. No. 25] For the following
reasons, the court grants the defendants' motion.
can move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings
are closed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). “To survive a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, a complaint must state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Milwaukee
Police Ass'n v. Flynn, 863 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir.
2017) (quoting Wagner v. Teva Pharm. USA,
Inc., 840 F.3d 355, 357-358 (7th Cir. 2016)). Ms.
Saunders filed her complaint without an attorney, so the
court “construe[s] it liberally, holding it to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,
” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th
Cir. 2015), and in the light most favorable to her, accepts
all well-pleaded facts as true, and draws all reasonable
inferences in her favor. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009); Bell v. City of Chicago, 835 F.3d
736, 738 (7th Cir. 2016). A Rule 12(c) motion can be granted
“when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff
cannot prove any facts to support a claim for relief and the
moving party demonstrates that there are no material issues
of fact to be resolved.” Moss v. Martin, 473
F.3d 694, 698 (7th Cir. 2007). The defendants argue the court
should enter judgment on the pleadings on all remaining
claims. Ms. Saunders filed a response indicating
that she didn't receive service of the defendants'
motion for judgment, so couldn't argue against it. [Doc.
No. 28]. Although it appears that the motion and the
accompanying brief was served on her via U.S. mail, the
defendants mailed Ms. Saunders another copy of the motion and
supporting brief and the court gave Ms. Saunders 28 more days
to respond. [Doc. Nos. 29, 30]. Ms. Saunders filed no
supplementary response and the defendants' motion is now
defendants argue that the court should enter judgment on the
pleadings on Ms. Saunders's remaining claims: that Select
Portfolio Servicing violated 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.38
and 1024.40, two Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
regulations. The defendants contend that there is no private
right of action to enforce those federal regulations, so Ms.
Saunders can't pursue their enforcement in this suit. The
promulgated 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.38 and 1024.40, the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection indicated that the
regulations allowed “[t]he Bureau and prudential
regulators . . . to supervise servicers within their
jurisdiction to assure compliance with these requirements but
there will not be a private right of action to enforce these
provisions.” Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X), 78 Fed. Reg.
10696, 10698 (Feb. 14, 2013) (to be codified at 12 C.F.R. pt.
1024). The “consensus of district courts across the
country” is that courts must dismiss lawsuits
attempting to enforce these Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection regulations. Golbeck v. Johnson Blumberg &
Assocs., LLC, No. 16-CV-6788, 2017 WL 3070868, at *9
(N.D. Ill. July 19, 2017) (collecting cases and dismissing a
claim seeking to enforce 12 C.F.R. § 1024.38). See
also Schmidt v. PennyMac Loan Servs., LLC, 106 F.Supp.3d
859, 868 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (holding there is no private right
of action to enforce 12 C.F.R. § 1024.40).
a private cause of action, Ms. Saunders can't enforce 12
C.F.R. §§ 1024.38 and 1024.40, so judgment on the
pleadings is warranted. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, [Doc.
No. 25], and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.
 The defendants note that after the
court dismissed Ms. Saunders's state law claims, no
claims remained against U.S. Bank National Association and
requests that the court dismiss U.S. Bank National
Association as a defendant. The court agrees and,