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.

Rose v. Bank of New York Mellon

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

June 21, 2018

JAMES EDWARD ROSE, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          SCHMEHL, J.

         Plaintiff James Edward Rose, Jr., proceeding pro se, has field this civil action against The Bank of New York Mellon, Carrington Mortgage Co., and Milstead and Associates. He has also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), as well as a “Motion for Temporary Injunction” (ECF No. 3) and “Motion Directing United States Marshal's Office to Serve the Named and Unnamed Defendants Through Their Counsel Milstead and Associates or in Person” (ECF No. 4). For the following reasons, the Court will grant Rose leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaint with leave to amend. The Court will also deny his Motions.

         I. FACTS

         Rose alleges that this matter “involves a history of over 23 years and the information that is needed in order for the Court to follow the history will be lengthy.” (Compl. at 2.) According to Rose, at some point in the past, he “was with Ho John Torsigni on the day [he applied] for a [home] loan.” (Id.) Rose was drunk because Torsigni had given him whiskey to celebrate the home loan. (Id.) He “was so drunk he could barely stand up.” (Id.) Rose gave Bob Wilson “20, 000 to put down on the loan to purchase the home.” (Id.)

         According to Rose, he first applied for the loan “under his true name of James E. Rose Junior some 23 or 24 years ago.” (Id. at 3.) However, he was informed by Wilson that he could not obtain a loan under his real name. (Id.) Wilson asked if Rose ever used another name, and Rose provided his alias of Jason E. Roman. (Id.) Wilson told Rose that “it was not illegal to use a fictitious name and that if anyone was to get in trouble it would be him.” (Id.) Rose “was told the loan was coming from a company owned by the Russian Mafia.” (Id.)

         Two months ago, Rose was applying for a modification loan from the Carrington Mortgage Company. (Id.) He was informed by the banker there that the loan under the name of Jason Roman “was an illegal loan.” (Id.) Rose “immediately moved to correct this problem with the illegal loan that [he] had nothing to do with, by informing the lenders that [he] is not Jason Roman.” (Id.) Rose also “filed a claim in Lehigh County Court to quash all foreclosure proceedings because all the foreclosure proceedings were conducted under a fictitious name.” (Id.)

         Rose “realizes now that he was a part of the banking institutions criminal activities” and claims that he “simply did not want to be a part of these banking shenanigans or manipulations.” (Id. at 4.) He states that he “became a gigolo in that he took money from his girlfriends to make his loan payments; this is no secret, not to local law enforcement.” (Id.) According to Rose, the Carrington Mortgage Company “explicitly told [him] that in order for them to process a loan modification [he] had to give a statement that Jason Roman and James Rose are the same person.” (Id.) Rose realized “that this is a lie and this type of statement would make the public believe that [he] suffers from schizophrenia and that [he] suffers from multiple personalities.” (Id.)

         According to Rose, Wilson and the Carrington Mortgage Company have turned him “into a bipolar and dissociative identity disorder individual.” (Id.) He contends that “the banks have violated [his] civil rights and contractual rights beyond repair.” (Id. at 5.) Rose further alleges that “Milstead and Associates were at all times relevant and aware of these defects in the banking contract and made no attempt whatsoever to cure the defect in the State Court foreclosure proceedings.” (Id. at 6.) He also argues that the contract was invalid because he was inebriated when he signed it. (Id.)

         Rose alleges that all transactions occurred in Lehigh County “except for the initial signing of the contract, which took place in Monroe County.” (Id. at 7.) As relief, he asks that the Court “enter judg[]ment against the defendants in excess of five million dollars per year for the past 15 years that these defendants, Country Wide Home Loans, Bank of America, Carrington Mortgage Company along with Milstead and Associates who all acted in concert among one another to deprive [him] and his minor son of their contractual rights as well as their civil rights and liberties.” (Id.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Court will grant Rose leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is not capable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to dismiss Rose's Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the complaint contains “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 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id. Because Rose is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).

         Moreover, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to contain “a short a plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8 if “the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). This Court has noted that Rule 8 “requires that pleadings provide enough information to put a defendant on sufficient notice to prepare their defense and also ensure that the Court is sufficiently informed to determine the issue.” Fabian v. St. Mary's Med. Ctr., No. Civ. A. 16-4741, 2017 WL 3494219, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2017) (quotations omitted).

         III. DISCUSSION

         The way in which Rose's Complaint is pled makes it difficult for the Court to discern whether he has stated a plausible claim for relief at this time. As noted above, Rose names The Bank of New York Mellon, Carrington Mortgage Co., and Milstead and Associates in the caption of his Complaint, but then appears to seek relief against Country Wide Home Loans and Bank of America as well. Accordingly, it is difficult ...


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.