Ezekwo v. Specialized Loan Servicing

Background

Dr. Ifeoma Ezekwo proceeded without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. She sued Specialized Loan Servicing (SLS), which the opinion identifies as a mortgage servicer located in Colorado. Ezekwo alleged that SLS approved a mortgage loan modification, then stopped accepting her payments and told her she had to complete the modification process again. She invoked constitutional provisions, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Dodd-Frank Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and several state-law theories. She requested injunctive relief and $3 billion in damages.

The court had previously dismissed her complaint with leave to replead some claims. It instructed her to describe clearly what happened and how SLS violated her rights. Ezekwo then filed a second amended complaint that was 152 pages and single-spaced. The court found it substantially similar to the earlier pleading and again burdened by legal arguments, quotations, and conclusory allegations.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual detail to make a claim for relief plausible. The court held that the second amended complaint did not satisfy this requirement.

The court had already dismissed Ezekwo’s constitutional claims, Title IX claim, and Dodd-Frank claim as improperly raised. It declined to reconsider those claims and dismissed them for the reasons stated in the April 17, 2023 order. Those reasons included that SLS was a private entity that did not act under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the alleged facts did not appear to support an FDCPA claim, that Title IX did not appear relevant, and that Dodd-Frank did not provide a private right of action.

As to the FDCPA, the court said it could not determine whether Ezekwo might state a claim based on SLS’s demand that she reapply for a loan modification because the relevant facts were buried in generic legal arguments and quotations. The court therefore allowed her to try again under the FDCPA if she clearly described what occurred and facts suggesting that she was entitled to relief.

The court also found that the RESPA allegations were insufficient. Ezekwo alleged generally that SLS committed illegal and criminal acts, made excessive payment demands, and did not explain its procedures. She did not provide facts explaining what happened concerning the loan modification or when it happened. The court granted leave to replead a RESPA claim if she could provide facts supporting one.

If Ezekwo could not state a federal claim but wanted to pursue state-law claims, the court said she would need to plead facts supporting diversity jurisdiction. That required facts showing that the parties were citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy had a reasonable probability of exceeding $75,000. The court also required facts supporting the state-law claims themselves.

Disposition

The court dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It granted Ezekwo one final opportunity to file a third amended complaint within 30 days that complied with the federal pleading rules. The court allowed repleading only of claims under the FDCPA, RESPA, and state law. If she did not timely file a compliant third amended complaint or show cause for failing to do so, the court stated that it would enter judgment consistent with the order.