Ezekwo v. Specialized Loan Servicing

Background

Ifeoma Ezekwo, appearing pro se (without a lawyer), sued Specialized Loan Servicing (SLS), which the opinion describes as a mortgage servicer located in Colorado. Ezekwo, who the opinion says currently lives in New Jersey, alleged that SLS approved a mortgage-loan modification, accepted required payments, then returned a payment and required her to complete another modification. She alleged that SLS refused further payments and sought to take her home and its equity. The property was a single-family house in the Bronx that Ezekwo and her husband, Samuel Ezekwo, owned and used partly as a medical office and partly as their residence.

The complaint invoked Title IX, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Dodd-Frank Act. It also asserted state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful threat of foreclosure and lack of authority, and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. Ezekwo sought $3 billion in damages and injunctive relief.

Claims on Behalf of Samuel Ezekwo

The court held that the case would proceed with Ifeoma Ezekwo as the sole plaintiff. Federal law allows a person to represent herself, but a self-represented person generally may not represent another person. Only Ifeoma Ezekwo signed the complaint, and the complaint did not allege that she was an attorney. The court therefore ruled that she could not assert claims on behalf of Samuel Ezekwo.

Rule 8 and Constitutional Claims

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court found that Ezekwo’s 116-page complaint consisted largely of legal boilerplate and did not allege enough specific facts explaining what occurred or why SLS was liable. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, while granting Ezekwo 60 days to file an amended complaint.

Because Ezekwo invoked constitutional provisions, the court construed those claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 generally requires a plaintiff to allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and action by a person acting under color of state law—that is, using authority connected to state government. The court ruled that Ezekwo had not stated a Section 1983 claim against SLS because SLS was alleged to be a private party, not an entity acting for a state or other government body.

Federal Statutory Claims

The court said that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to a mortgage servicer when the mortgage was already in default when the servicer began servicing it. Ezekwo did not allege facts showing that the mortgage was in default at that time. The court noted that her allegations instead appeared to say that she had been making timely payments. The court granted leave to amend so she could provide facts showing that she could state a viable claim under that statute.

The court found no apparent relevance for Title IX because the complaint did not allege exclusion from, denial of benefits of, or discrimination in an education program receiving federal financial assistance. It also ruled that the Dodd-Frank Act provision cited by Ezekwo did not provide a private right of action; the opinion says the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has exclusive authority to enforce the relevant ban on unfair, deceptive, or abusive consumer practices. The court therefore concluded that the Dodd-Frank claim did not provide a basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction

The court could not evaluate Ezekwo’s state-law claims because the complaint contained too few facts about what happened. The court also explained that diversity jurisdiction requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 is at stake. Ezekwo did not allege the parties’ citizenship or that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court granted leave to amend to provide facts supporting diversity jurisdiction.

The court reserved the question whether it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims in an amended complaint if no federal claims remained.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and granted Ezekwo 60 days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint must completely replace the original rather than supplement it, and any facts or claims Ezekwo wishes to retain must be repeated in the new filing. The court directed her to submit it to the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-1141 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time.

The court stated that its earlier warnings about potentially restricting further filings remained in effect in light of Ezekwo’s litigation history. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. If Ezekwo did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.