United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Kathleen and Harry Keyser allege that Defendants forged a
note and mortgage, and subsequently relied upon the
fraudulent documents to secure a state court judgment in
mortgage foreclosure. Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
(“Ocwen”), U.S. Bank National Association, as
Trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-BC4
(“U.S. Bank”), Stern & Eisenberg PC, and
Christina C. Viola have moved to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiffs have not filed responses, but the Court will
nonetheless address the motions on the merits.
amended complaint sets forth seven claims: (1) violation of
the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, based
on Defendants' use of the mail to send the forged note
and mortgage; (2) fraud based on the note and mortgage
being forged, and based on false allegations in the complaint
and motion for summary judgment in the state court
action; (3) violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”) based on Defendants'
conspiracy to create fraudulent documents in order to
“mislead the courts”; (4) violation of the
Uniform Commercial Code during the state court action based
on Defendants' “not allowing an inspection to
determine the authenticity or genuineness of the alleged
notes”; (5) violation of the FDCPA based on
Defendants' production of forged and fraudulent
promissory and mortgage notes to the state
court; (6) a request that this Court void the
fraudulent notes because Defendants misrepresented their
authenticity in state court; and (7) identity theft based on
Defendants' creation of a sham trust to foreclose on
Plaintiffs' claims are rooted in the theory that they
never executed the note and mortgage at issue, and that the
documents relied upon by Defendants in the state court action
were fraudulent. A plaintiff's claims may be precluded
based on the doctrine of res judicata if the
following elements are present: “(1) a final judgment
on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties
or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same
cause of action.” “Res judicata applies
not only to claims actually litigated, but also to claims
which could have been litigated during the first proceeding
if they were part of the same cause of
action.” Plaintiffs' claims in this action
are entirely based on the state court action, which resulted
in a final judgment on the merits involving Defendants.
Because Plaintiffs' grievances could have been raised in
the state court action, res judicata bars Plaintiffs
from relitigating them in this Court, and the complaint will
be dismissed with prejudice.
 In the state court action, the Bucks
County Court of Common Pleas granted a motion for summary
judgment in favor of Defendant U.S. Bank, the holder of the
note and mortgage in question, and Plaintiffs' property
was subsequently sold to U.S. Bank at sheriffs'
 Amended Complaint ¶¶
 Id. ¶¶
 Id. ¶ 60.
 Id. ¶ 66.
 Id. ¶¶
 Id. ¶ 75.
Id. ¶ 88.