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.

Strunk v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

November 3, 2014

RANCE M. STRUNK, SR., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, District Judge.

This is the fourth pro se complaint brought by the plaintiffs based on an October 28, 2011 mortgage foreclosure proceeding filed against them by Wells Fargo Bank. I dismissed the previous three complaints, twice with prejudice. See Yoder, [1] et al. v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 11-cv-7503, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177913 (E.D. Pa. December 17, 2012), see Document #13 (dismissing complaint without prejudice and granting leave to file an amended complaint), and see Document #30 (dismissing first amended complaint with prejudice); see also Yoder, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., 13-cv-1377, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146545 (E.D. Pa. October 9, 2013) (dismissing complaint with prejudice). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs had "not set forth a set of facts that state a claim that is plausible on its face." Yoder, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., 566 F.App'x 138, 141 (3d Cir. 2014). Notwithstanding those dismissals and the appellate court's affirmance, the plaintiffs have boldly returned to this court alleging the same claims against Wells Fargo, two law firms, and three attorneys which the plaintiffs had alleged in previous complaints. The claims include breach of contract; mortgage violations; violations of, inter alia, the United States Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Crimes Act, the Truth-in-Lending Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; and several other state torts and state crimes.

Defendant Wells Fargo and co-defendants Stevens & Lee, Stacey Scrivani, and Craig A. Hirneisen filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. See Document #5. Co-defendants Phelan, Hallinan, & Schmieg and Jenine Rebecca Davey filed a separate motion to dismiss and joined in their co-defendants' motion to dismiss. See Document #6. The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition. For the following reasons, I will grant the motions in their entirety.

I. BACKGROUND[2]

As with the previous complaints, the fourth complaint is very difficult to decipher. In fact, the complaint is almost unintelligible and fails to show with any specific facts that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief. One thing is clear, however. The complaint is again based on the foreclosure of the plaintiffs' mortgage. As a review of the following actions reveals, the plaintiffs have had numerous opportunities to state a cognizable claim against the defendants, yet with no success.

A. Previous Actions

1. The 2011 Action

On November 7, 2011, relying on a Power of Attorney, Ms. Yoder initiated a pro se action against Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, an unincorporated division of Wells Fargo, by filing a complaint on behalf of her parents in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania. Although separate from the proceeding brought by Wells Fargo on October 28, 2011, the new case raised the same claims related to the mortgage transaction that was the subject of the foreclosure action. On December 7, 2011, Wells Fargo removed the 2011 action to federal court.

On December 13, 2011, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 7, 2012, I granted the motion, but granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint if they could "do so in good faith and in accordance with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." On April 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Two weeks later, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted with prejudice on December 17, 2012. The plaintiffs chose not to appeal the dismissal.

2. The Magisterial District Justice Action

On February 17, 2012, Ms. Yoder initiated an action in Magisterial District Court (No. MDJ-23-1-01), in Berks County, Pennsylvania against Defendants Stacey Scrivani and Stevens & Lee, purporting to assert various violations of criminal statutes in connection with their representation of Wells Fargo. The 2012 Action was terminated on May 18, 2012, when the Magisterial District Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. There was no appeal filed.

3. The 2013 Action

On February 15, 2013, the Strunks and Ms. Yoder initiated another action by filing a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County against Wells Fargo, Stevens & Lee, and Ms. Scrivani, and also included Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP, Jenine Rebecca Davey, and Titacium Solutions, Inc. On March 15, 2013, the case was removed to federal court.

On March 22, 2013, the defendants filed two separate motions to dismiss the complaint. I granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice on October 9, 2013, explaining, "After the most liberal review of the complaint, I cannot identify a plausible claim for relief." Yoder, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146545, *6 (E.D. Pa. October 9, 2013). I dismissed the complaint with prejudice because despite "three attempts to draft a complaint which states a plausible claim for relief, plaintiffs' current version is incoherent and unintelligible." Id. at *8. I also found that the plaintiffs "have developed a pattern of filing frivolous complaints, ignoring the rules of procedure, and disrespecting this court's ...


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.