Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00165/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00165-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 12:191 Bank Foreclosure

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LORENZO BENNETT, SR., :

Plaintiff, :

v. : CA 15-00165-KD-C

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those 

portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated August 17, 2015, is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of this Court.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED in part and DENIED 

in part. It is ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion is GRANTED as to the following 

claims:

• Bennett’s negligence and wantonness claims against Nationstar and BONYM (Count One).

• Bennett’s negligent misrepresentation claims (to the extent they are asserted separately and 

apart from Bennett’s negligence claims) against Nationstar and BONYM (Count One).

• Bennett’s claim for breach of contractual obligations of good faith and fair dealing against 

Nationstar and BONYM (Count Three).

• Bennett’s claims for violations of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41 and § 1024.35 against BONYM 

(Counts Five and Six).

• Bennett’s claims for statutory damages against Nationstar and BONYM based on an alleged 

“pattern or practice” of RESPA violations (Counts Five and Six).

• Bennett’s claim for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 10, at 37-39).

Case 1:15-cv-00165-KD-C Document 37 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2

The Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Doc. 18) is DENIED as to Bennett’s breach of contract 

(Count Three), FDCPA (Count Four), and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief claims, and 

Bennett is ORDERED sua sponte to replead Counts Three and Four not later than September 22, 

2015. Plaintiff shall adhere to the following standards in repleading his complaint:

1. Bennett shall omit mention of any claim that is dismissed by the Court’s Order addressing 

the Report and Recommendation.

2. In filing an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must not file another shotgun complaint. 

Bennett shall refrain from incorporating multiple causes of action into one count, as well as from the 

wholesale adoption by reference of all allegations in the Amended Complaint into each cause of 

action. Instead, he must list each discrete cause of action (e.g., breach of contract or FDCPA 

violations) in a separate count and identify with specificity the factual allegations used to support 

each discrete claim against each individual Defendant.

3. In being ordered to replead under Rule 12(e), Bennett is not being granted leave to amend 

his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Thus, he shall not use this as an 

opportunity to add new claims and/or parties which are not apparent from the allegations in his 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). Cf. Washington v. Util. Trailer Mfg. Co., No. 1:13–CV–610–WEF, 

2014 WL 2831189, at *5 n.5 (M.D. Ala. June 23, 2014) (“Plaintiffs may not use this order to replead Count I as an opportunity to add new claims.”).

DONE and ORDERED this the 8th day of September 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00165-KD-C Document 37 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 2