United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
MABLE L. RAHMAN, Plaintiff,
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant.
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Mable L. Rahman brings this pro se action against
Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar” or
“Defendant”) relating to a mortgage loan on her
personal residence. ECF No. 2. Now pending before the Court
is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8. No hearing
is necessary. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following
reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
November 13, 2017, Plaintiff, a citizen of the State of
Maryland, filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Prince
George's County, Maryland, Case No. CALI17-36084, in
connection with a mortgage loan and lien against the real
property commonly known as 11 Akin Avenue, Capitol Heights,
Maryland 20886 (the “Property”). ECF No. 2.
Plaintiff requested the court to extinguish Plaintiff's
debt from a mortgage loan serviced by Defendant and release
all liens Defendant has against the Property. Id. at
Plaintiff appears to allege that it sent Defendant
self-executed documents entitled “Non-Negotiable Asset
Credit Voucher No. 810077993” and “Declaration of
Trust #RE810077993US” as payment for the subject debt
and, because Defendant did not respond to or acknowledge the
documents, Plaintiff is entitled to “equitable title
transfer.” Id. at 2. On February 5, 2018,
Defendant removed the action to this Court, stating that the
Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. ECF No. 1. Thereafter, Defendant moved to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). ECF No. 8.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The
purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test
the sufficiency of the complaint. Presley v. City of
Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). To
survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain
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) (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). A claim is plausible when “the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. While courts must
liberally construe pro se complaints, Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the court cannot
ignore a clear failure to allege facts which set forth a
claim cognizable in a federal district court. See
Randolph v. Baltimore City States Atty., No.
WQD-14-3176, 2014 WL 5293708, at *1 (D. Md. Oct. 14, 2014)
(citing Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d
387 (4th Cir. 1990)).
has not asserted any cognizable claims against Defendant.
Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant violated any federal
or state laws when interacting with her or servicing her
loan. Nor does Plaintiff set forth a colorable allegation
disputing the existence or validity of the underlying loan.
Instead, Plaintiff's Complaint and subsequent filings are
limited to streams of legal jargon that render her pleadings
incomprehensible. All the Court can surmise is that Plaintiff
insists that she should be released from all debts and liens
related to the Property because Defendant failed to respond
to Plaintiff's self-executed documents mailed on October
11, 2016. ECF No. 1 at 2. Nothing about these documents
suggests that Plaintiff is entitled to discharge of her loan
repayment obligations, and Plaintiff's Complaint will be
Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, entitled “A Notice of Intention to Defend,
” contains additional assertions that, while conclusory
and vague, allege that Defendant has taken some action to
deceive Plaintiff beyond Defendant's failure to respond
to Plaintiff's self-executed documents. See ECF
No. 11 at 2 (“The first grounds upon which this notice
of breach of trust is given, arises from Defendant willful
concealing material facts and misrepresenting the terms of
the contract for the purpose of deceiving the beneficiary by
concealing material facts regarding the plaintiff rights,
title and interest held in the trust.”). Although
Plaintiff cannot amend a Complaint through statements made in
an opposition to a Motion to Dismiss, see Zachair, Ltd.
v. Driggs, 965 F.Supp. 741, 748 n. 4 (D. Md. 1997),
aff'd, 141 F.3d 1162 (4th Cir. 1998)
(unpublished table opinion), Plaintiff will be given an
opportunity to file an Amended Complaint if she is able to
state a claim based on these allegations. See, e.g.,
Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 252-53 (4th Cir.
1999) (noting that a plaintiff should be afforded at least
one amendment regardless of how unpromising the initial
pleading is, unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiff
cannot state a claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to
set forth any specific factual allegations related to
Defendant's conduct, beyond that alleged herein related
to Defendant's failure to respond to Plaintiff's
self-executed documents, will result in dismissal of
Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No.
8, shall be granted. A separate Order follows.
 Pin cites to documents filed on the
Court's electronic filing system (CM/ECF) refer to the
page numbers generated by that system.
 Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of
Maryland. Defendant is a limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
principal place of business located in Texas. ECF No. 1
¶¶ 11, 12. Plaintiff indicates that as of February
5, 2018, the principal balance of the mortgage loan Plaintiff
seeks to extinguish is $244, 025.86 and the value of the