Abdiel Echeverria v. Bank of America, N.A. , 632 F. App'x 1006 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 14-15375   Date Filed: 12/03/2015   Page: 1 of 9
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 14-15375
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-00486-CEM-DAB
    ABDIEL ECHEVERRIA,
    ISABEL SANTAMARIA,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    versus
    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
    URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICES,
    d.b.a. Urban Lending Solutions,
    CARLISLE & GALLAGHER CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (December 3, 2015)
    Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit
    Judges.
    Case: 14-15375       Date Filed: 12/03/2015        Page: 2 of 9
    PER CURIAM:
    Abdiel Echeverria and Isabel Santamaria, proceeding pro se, brought this
    lawsuit against Bank of America, N.A., Urban Settlement Services, and Carlisle &
    Gallagher Consulting Group, Inc. (CGCG). They alleged claims for fraud and
    breach of contract in relation to the bank’s denial of their request to modify the
    mortgage on their home. All three defendants filed motions to dismiss based on
    res judicata and the plaintiffs’ failure to state plausible claims for relief. 1 The
    plaintiffs filed two motions to amend their complaint. The district court granted
    the defendants’ motions, denied the plaintiffs’ motions to amend as moot, and
    dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. This is the plaintiffs’ appeal.2
    I.
    The plaintiffs purchased their home in 2008 with a mortgage. In late 2009,
    they discovered that a former subsidiary of the bank had purchased that mortgage
    from the original lender. The plaintiffs requested a mortgage modification, which
    the bank’s subsidiary denied. (That subsidiary has since merged with the bank and
    ceased to exist as an independent entity.)
    1
    A “party may raise a res judicata defense by motion rather than by answer where the
    defense’s existence can be judged on the face of the complaint.” Concordia v. Bendekovic, 
    693 F.2d 1073
    , 1075 (11th Cir. 1982).
    2
    The plaintiffs raise thirteen issues on appeal, but those issues can be condensed into two.
    They are challenging the district court’s dismissal of their claims on res judicata grounds and the
    denial of their motions to amend their complaint.
    2
    Case: 14-15375     Date Filed: 12/03/2015     Page: 3 of 9
    The plaintiffs then brought the first of three lawsuits against the bank for
    claims related to that denial of their request for mortgage modification. In that first
    lawsuit, they alleged two claims based on federal statutes and two state law tort
    claims. Echeverria v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (Echeverria I), 
    900 F. Supp. 2d 1299
    , 1303 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2012). All of the plaintiffs’ claims arose
    out of the bank’s conduct in denying their request for mortgage modification. 
    Id.
    at 1303–08. The district court dismissed two of the claims with prejudice for
    failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to the bank on the other
    two. 
    Id. at 1309
    . We affirmed. Echeverria v. BAC Homes Loans Servicing, LP,
    523 F. App’x 675 (11th Cir. 2013) (unpublished).
    In the plaintiffs’ second lawsuit against the bank, their allegations were
    “virtually identical in substance” to their allegations in their first lawsuit even
    though they put different labels on the claims. Echeverria v. Bank of Am., N.A.
    (Echeverria II), No. 6:12-cv-1360, 
    2012 WL 5417286
    , at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6,
    2012). The district court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred and
    dismissed the second lawsuit with prejudice. 
    Id.
    In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs once again assert claims based on the same
    conduct — the denial of their request for mortgage modification. This time,
    however, they have sued not only the bank but also two new defendants, Urban
    and CGCG. Those new defendants helped the bank handle the plaintiffs’ request
    3
    Case: 14-15375     Date Filed: 12/03/2015    Page: 4 of 9
    for mortgage modification. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with
    prejudice based on res judicata and denied their motions to amend their complaint
    as moot.
    II.
    We review the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims de novo and
    apply federal preclusion principles. Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Eng’g, Inc., 
    731 F.3d 1171
    , 1179 (11th Cir. 2013); Jang v. United Techs. Corp., 
    206 F.3d 1147
    ,
    1149 (11th Cir. 2000).
    Res judicata bars the plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit if the judgments in the
    first two lawsuits: (1) were “rendered by . . . court[s] of competent jurisdiction”;
    (2) were “final and on the merits”; (3) involved “the same parties or those in
    privity with them”; and (4) involved “the same causes of action.” Borrero v.
    United Healthcare of N.Y., Inc., 
    610 F.3d 1296
    , 1306 (11th Cir. 2010). There is no
    dispute that the first and second requirements are met.
    Regarding the third, the complaint alleges that Urban and CGCG acted as
    the bank’s agents during the alleged mishandling of the plaintiffs’ request for
    mortgage modification. A principal–agent relationship is one kind of “substantive
    legal relationship” that establishes privity for claim preclusion purposes. Taylor v.
    Sturgell, 
    553 U.S. 880
    , 894 & n.8, 
    128 S. Ct. 2161
    , 2172 & n.8 (2008); see
    Griswold v. Cty. of Hillsborough, 
    598 F.3d 1289
    , 1292 (11th Cir. 2010); Citibank,
    4
    Case: 14-15375        Date Filed: 12/03/2015        Page: 5 of 9
    N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 
    904 F.2d 1498
    , 1502–03 (11th Cir. 1990). Urban
    and CGCG, as the bank’s agents, were in privity with the bank.
    Regarding the fourth requirement for res judicata, the plaintiffs have brought
    the “same cause of action” in this lawsuit as in the first two lawsuits — their
    current lawsuit arose from the “same nucleus of operative fact” as the first two.
    Trustmark Ins. Co. v. ESLU, Inc., 
    299 F.3d 1265
    , 1270 (11th Cir. 2002). Just as
    they did in those two earlier lawsuits, the plaintiffs have brought claims based on
    the alleged mishandling of their request for mortgage modification. That alleged
    mishandling “constitute[s] the factual predicate, and any claims relating to [it]
    should [have been] brought in the same lawsuit.” 
    Id.
     Because all four
    requirements for res judicata are met, that doctrine bars the plaintiffs’ claims
    against Urban and CGCG, the bank’s agents, as well as the bank.
    Attempting to dodge that bar, the plaintiffs assert that they only recently
    discovered Urban and CGCG’s role in the denial of their request for mortgage
    modification. That may be true, but the facts of Urban and CGCG’s involvement
    already existed when the plaintiffs brought their first lawsuit, and res judicata
    applies to all claims based on facts that were in existence at the time the original
    lawsuit was filed. See Pleming v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 
    142 F.3d 1354
    , 1357
    (11th Cir. 1998). 3
    3
    The plaintiffs also argue that the district court should have considered certain exhibits and
    5
    Case: 14-15375       Date Filed: 12/03/2015       Page: 6 of 9
    III.
    The plaintiffs also challenge the district court’s denial of their motions to
    amend their complaint as moot. We review the denial of a motion to amend a
    complaint only for an abuse of discretion but “[t]he underlying legal conclusion of
    whether a particular amendment to the complaint would have been futile is
    reviewed de novo.” Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 
    428 F.3d 1008
    , 1012 (11th Cir.
    2005). “If a complaint as amended is still subject to dismissal,” then it is futile and
    “leave to amend need not be given.” Halliburton & Assocs., Inc. v. Henderson,
    Few & Co., 
    774 F.2d 441
    , 444 (11th Cir. 1985).
    The plaintiffs moved to file two proposed amended complaints. They assert
    that those proposed amended complaints are not barred by res judicata because
    they contain new facts and new causes of action.
    A.
    The first proposed amended complaint contains eleven claims. Six of those
    arose from the defendants’ alleged mishandling of the plaintiffs’ mortgage
    judicial notices before dismissing their case. Even if that is true, those documents would not
    have changed the fact that this lawsuit arises from the same facts as Echeverria I and is barred by
    res judicata. The plaintiffs’ argument that the district court erred in granting the motions to
    dismiss before permitting discovery also fails. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 
    123 F.3d 1353
    , 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Facial challenges to the legal sufficiency of a claim or defense,
    such as a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim for relief, should . . . be resolved
    before discovery begins.”).
    6
    Case: 14-15375      Date Filed: 12/03/2015    Page: 7 of 9
    modification request. Those claims are futile because they are barred by res
    judicata, for the reasons we have already discussed.
    The five remaining claims in the first proposed amended complaint are also
    futile because they do not satisfy the plausibility threshold required to survive a
    motion to dismiss. Simpson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 
    774 F.3d 702
    , 708 (11th
    Cir. 2014) (stating that a pleading that fails to state a plausible claim for relief
    cannot survive a motion to dismiss). Four of those five claims apparently are an
    attempt to allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based on a
    letter that the plaintiffs received in September 2013 from a company allegedly
    working to collect a debt on behalf of the bank. Those claims cannot survive a
    motion to dismiss for two reasons. First, they are partly based on “formulaic
    recitation[s] of the elements” and “mere conclusory statements” that do not satisfy
    the plausibility standard required for pleadings. 
    Id.
     (quotation marks omitted).
    Second, the facts alleged in them do not allow “the reasonable inference that the
    defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 
    Id.
     (quotation marks omitted). For
    example, the plaintiffs allege that they asked the company to verify the amount of
    their debt, and that the company forwarded that request to the bank. The Act,
    however, permitted the company to do that. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
    The fifth of these five claims, and the last remaining one in the first
    proposed amended complaint, is titled “extrinsic fraud.” It alleges that the bank
    7
    Case: 14-15375     Date Filed: 12/03/2015     Page: 8 of 9
    concealed “material facts, necessary defendants, and other pertinent matters” that
    could have changed the outcomes of Echeverria I and Echeverria II. The plaintiffs
    assert that they can re-open the judgments in those decisions under Florida Rule of
    Civil Procedure 1.540(b), but that rule does not apply here. See Horowitch v.
    Diamond Aircraft Indust., Inc., 
    645 F.3d 1254
    , 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) (noting that
    federal courts sitting in diversity apply federal procedural law). The federal
    analogue to the Florida rule is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), so we will
    interpret the claim as an attempt to re-open the earlier judgements under Rule
    60(b)(3).
    In order to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(3), the moving party “must prove
    by clear and convincing evidence that the adverse party obtained the verdict
    through fraud” and that “the conduct prevented [the moving party] from fully
    presenting [its] case.” Waddell v. Hendry Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 
    329 F.3d 1300
    ,
    1309 (11th Cir. 2003). The plaintiffs do not allege with specificity any material
    facts that the bank had an obligation to disclose its relationship with Urban and
    CGCG. See Booker v. Dugger, 
    825 F.2d 281
    , 283–84 (11th Cir. 1987)
    (“Conclusory averments of the existence of fraud made on information and belief
    and unaccompanied by a statement of clear and convincing probative facts which
    support such belief do not serve to raise the issue of the existence of fraud . . . .”)
    (quotation marks omitted).
    8
    Case: 14-15375         Date Filed: 12/03/2015         Page: 9 of 9
    The district court also noted that the plaintiffs could have discovered the
    bank’s relationship with the other parties during the previous litigation. If the
    plaintiffs were unable to fully present their case in the earlier lawsuits, it was a
    result of their failure to engage in the necessary discovery, not any alleged fraud
    committed by the bank. See 
    id. at 284
     (stating that parties seeking relief from a
    judgment on grounds of fraud must show that their own “negligence or oversight,
    however innocent” did not contribute to that judgment) (quotation marks omitted).
    B.
    The plaintiffs’ second proposed amended complaint contains thirteen claims.
    Eleven of those claims essentially repeat and repackage the same claims that are in
    the first proposed amended complaint. Those eleven claims are futile for the
    reasons discussed in Part III.A. The “new facts” that the plaintiffs allege do not
    change that outcome. 4 And because the two additional claims in the second
    proposed amended complaint arose out of the bank’s alleged mishandling of the
    plaintiffs’ request for mortgage modification, those additional claims are futile
    because of res judicata.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    For example, the plaintiffs include as an exhibit the letter that is the basis for their Fair Debt
    Collection Practices Act claims. However, that letter complies with the provisions of the statutes
    that the plaintiffs contend were violated. For example, it contains the information required by 15
    U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (such as the amount of the debt and the name of the creditor to whom it is
    owed).
    9