United States District Court, D. Maryland
TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court are the motions to dismiss filed by
Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”)
and BWW Law Group LLC (“BWW”) (collectively, the
“Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 25 & 26.) Having
considered the submissions of the parties (ECF Nos. 20, 25,
26, 29, 32 & 33), I find that a hearing is unnecessary.
See Loc. R. 105.6. For the reasons set forth below,
the Defendants' motions will be granted and the case will
be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Previous Litigation Before This
the second case filed by Plaintiff Rochell Talley
(“Talley”) regarding the foreclosure of his home
that has come before this Court. Previously, on January 5,
2016, Talley filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County, Maryland (“Circuit Court”),
challenging events related to the same mortgage loan and
subsequent foreclosure of the property located at 9111 Duvall
Road, Upper Marlboro, Maryland (“Property”) that
are now at issue in this case. See Talley v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, No. RWT-16-389, 2016 WL 1321427 (D. Md. Apr.
5, 2016) (? Talley I ”),
aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds,
remanded sub nom. Talley v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
No. 16-1478, 2017 WL 218858 (4th Cir. Jan. 19, 2017).
essential facts underlying Talley I and this case
On May 23, 2005, the Plaintiff executed an Adjustable Rate
Note payable to Defendant IndyMac, secured by a Deed of Trust
on property at 9111 Duvall Road in Upper Marlboro, Maryland,
which was recorded on July 13, 2005. The Plaintiff alleges
that the loan “was immediately sold and securitized
after closing.” The Plaintiff further alleges that the
transfer was completed without notice to the Plaintiff,
without required endorsements, and in violation of several
laws. On August 20, 2014, Defendant Ocwen began foreclosure
proceedings in Prince George's County Circuit Court, and
on January 29, 2015, that court ordered that a foreclosure
sale could be scheduled. The Plaintiff responded by filing
two motions for temporary restraining orders, which the court
Id. (internal citations omitted).
the defendants in Talley I removed the case to this
Court, they moved to dismiss the complaint. Id. at
*1. Included among the 16 counts of the complaint in
Talley I was a claim for quiet title. (Id.)
Talley I addressed this claim and others that challenged the
defendants' standing to foreclose on the Property:
Much of Plaintiff s Complaint and his Opposition relate to
his assertion that the foreclosure proceedings rely on
fraudulent representations by the Defendants. The Plaintiff
protests that the Defendants do not have standing to
foreclose and so have engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the
state court. These arguments are a collateral attack on the
state court's judgments in the ongoing foreclosure
action, in which the state court has already permitted the
parties to schedule a foreclosure sale and denied Plaintiffs
objections. “The Maryland courts and this Court,
applying Maryland law, have consistently held that res
judicata bars collateral attacks on foreclosure
judgments entered in the Circuit Courts.” Jones v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. RWT-09-2904, 2011 WL 382371, at
*5 (D. Md. Feb. 3, 2011), aff'd, 444 Fed.Appx.
640 (4th Cir. 2011). Although the foreclosure proceeding has
not been finalized, in denying the Plaintiff's motion to
object, the state court necessarily ruled that the Defendants
had standing to foreclose. Any ruling by this Court to the
contrary would be improper.
Id. at *2 (internal citations omitted). The Court
went on to dismiss all of Talley's claims with prejudice.
Id. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part
and reversed in part, remanding the case for this Court to
determine whether Talley should be granted leave to amend.
Talley, 673 Fed.Appx. 329. On remand, the Court
granted Talley leave to file an amended complaint, but Talley
instead sought to voluntarily dismiss the case. (ECF No. 44
in RWT-16-389.) The Court dismissed Talley I without
prejudice on March 21, 2017. (ECF No. 48 in RWT-16-389.)
filed the instant case in the Circuit Court on November 28,
2017. (ECF No. 2.) Ocwen timely removed the case to this
Court on January 5, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) In the Complaint, Talley
asserts a single claim for quiet title. (ECF No. 2.) Talley
requests that the Court “[d]eclare the Deed of Trust to
be null and void” and “[d]eclare the promissory
note to be declared fully discharged.” (Id. at
21.) Although the factual allegations of the Complaint are
somewhat circuitous, at bottom, Talley alleges that Ocwen is
not the “real party of interest” on his mortgage
loan and seeks clarification as to who holds title to the