The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Vanaskie
In 2006, Plaintiff, Ms. Allison Straker, took out two sub-prime loans from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. acting solely as nominee for Freemont Loan & Investment. Plaintiff alleges that a plethora of her rights were violated in connection with these transactions. Consequently, she filed this action, proceeding pro se, on February 23, 2009, alleging ten causes of action against Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust as Trustee ("Deutsche"), Penn American Mortgage ("Penn"), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("Mortgage Electronic"), Freemont Investing & Loan ("Freemont"), Homeq Servicing ("Homeq") and John Does 1-1000. (Comp., Dkt. 1.)*fn1
Defendants have moved to dismiss the action. Because a number of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and the remaining claims have not been properly pled, this Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but afford Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint if she can do so in good faith.
On February 23, 2009, Plaintiff initiated the current action alleging violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2605; the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act ("HOEPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1639; the Truth-in-Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1601; and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681. (Comp., Dkt. 1.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleged claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, civil RICO, quiet title, and usury against Defendants Deutsche Bank, Penn American, Freemont, Homeq, and John Does 1-1000. (Id.)
Plaintiff's Complaint includes 118 paragraphs of allegations. (Id.) A significant portion of the body of Plaintiff's Complaint can be found in Nature of the Action by Neil Garfield.*fn2
Accordingly, there are only a handful of statements included in Plaintiff's Complaint that are personal to her claim and not pulled directly from the above-posted source.
Unique to Plaintiff's Complaint include the Preliminary Statement, her jurisdictional statement, and her identification of the parties. Other than those statements, less than a dozen paragraphs in the Complaint are original. Accordingly, based on the information in the Complaint the Court has discerned that, "[o]n or about June 2, 2006, Plaintiff entered into a consumer credit transaction with Defendant Freemont Investment & Loan, in which the extended consumer credit was subject to a finance charge and which was initially payable to Defendant Freemont Investment & Loan." (Comp., Dkt. 1, at ¶ 14.) As to her transactions, Plaintiff alleges:
Prior to June 2, 2006, and in the application process for the involved consumer credit, Plaintiff had been told by the loan originator that the transaction was between Plaintiff and Freemont Investment & Loan.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and each of them neither explained the workings of all of the adjustable interest rate(s), how it is computed nor its inherent volatility. Furthermore, no written figures were provided to Plaintiff showing the final payment of the loan at the ending interest rate, which "lender" knew Plaintiff would not qualify for. Furthermore, Plaintiff was not given the documents three (3) days prior to closing as is required by law.
Subsequent to the settlement, Plaintiff received written notice from [sic] that she was to pay her periodic payments to HomEq Servicing. Plaintiff was not notified of any change of ownership, lender, investors, Trustee or Beneficiary. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-20.)
The remainder of Plaintiff's Complaint includes numerous allegations repeated verbatim from Nature of the Action, including the allegation that Defendants' conduct has left Plaintiff, "in the position of being in an adversary proceeding with ghosts." (Id. at ¶ 34; Nature of the Action, pg. 5, at ¶ 22.)*fn3
Plaintiff's claim for relief requests:
[E]ntry of Final Judgment against all Defendants jointly and severally in an amount not yet quantified but to be proven at trial and such other amounts to be proven at trial, and for costs and attorneys' fees; that the Court find that the transactions the subject of this action are illegal and are deemed void; that the foreclosure which was instituted be deemed and declared illegal and void and that further proceedings in connection with ...