Baker v. CITIMORTGAGE INC.

Background

Michelle Anita Baker, representing herself, sued CitiMortgage, Inc. and Craig M. Barbee over conduct connected with a foreclosure action. She alleged claims under the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and what she called the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1964. She alleged that CitiMortgage held the note and mortgage, failed to provide certain information, supplied misleading or false information, and used nonjudicial processes to try to seize the property. She alleged that Barbee represented CitiMortgage but did not identify specific unlawful statements or actions by him. Baker sought damages, including punitive damages, and asked that the property be returned to her. She also moved for a preliminary injunction.

This was Baker’s fourth case against CitiMortgage and her first against Barbee. In her first case, filed in 2016, she sought to void the same mortgage; the court dismissed that case with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim. In her second case, filed in 2017, she asserted several claims arising from CitiMortgage’s conduct regarding the mortgage; the district court dismissed that case with prejudice, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. In her third case, filed in 2020, Baker initially sued CitiMortgage and another defendant, but later amended her complaint without naming CitiMortgage. The court later entered summary judgment against her claims against the remaining defendant, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The opinion stated that it was unclear whether the third case produced a judgment on the merits as to CitiMortgage, but found that the first two cases were sufficient to resolve the present case.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff. The complaint must contain enough factual content to make relief plausible rather than speculative. Courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally, but those complaints still must allege enough facts to support the claims asserted.

Claim Preclusion

Claim preclusion is a rule that generally prevents a party from bringing a later case based on the same claim after an earlier case resulted in a final judgment on the merits. The court explained that the rule applies when the earlier case had proper jurisdiction, involved the same parties or parties legally connected to them, and involved the same claims or claims arising from the same underlying facts.

The court held that Baker’s claims against CitiMortgage were precluded. The first two cases resulted in judgments on the merits, were based on federal-question jurisdiction, involved Baker and CitiMortgage, and concerned the same mortgage and CitiMortgage’s asserted foreclosure rights. Baker argued that this case involved a foreclosure proceeding occurring on May 25, 2023. The court acknowledged that claim preclusion would likely not apply to facts unique to a later foreclosure proceeding. But it found that the amended complaint did not connect CitiMortgage’s alleged unlawful conduct to acts occurring specifically and only during that May 2023 proceeding. The court therefore dismissed the claims against CitiMortgage on claim-preclusion grounds.

Other Pleading Deficiencies

The court stated that, even if claim preclusion did not apply, the amended complaint would fail under the ordinary plausibility standard. Baker alleged that CitiMortgage made misrepresentations but did not identify what the misrepresentations were, how they concerned the note or mortgage, or how they injured her. Her allegations against Barbee likewise did not identify what he said or did unlawfully. Although she appeared to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint did not allege facts indicating that Barbee acted as a state actor, which is generally required for such a claim. The court also found that several allegations were too vague to show what information should have been disclosed, to whom, why disclosure was required, or how the alleged failure was unlawful. It concluded that the amended complaint did not state a plausible claim against either defendant.

Disposition

The court determined that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because Baker had repeatedly failed to plead sufficient claims, including in several earlier cases, and did not request another opportunity to amend in response to the dismissal motions. The court granted Craig M. Barbee’s motion to dismiss and granted CitiMortgage, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. It denied Baker’s motion for a preliminary injunction as moot and dismissed the action with prejudice. Judge Eric C. Tostrud directed that judgment be entered.