Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01758/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01758-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1758

___________

SUSAN BATISTA,

 Appellant 

v.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP; 

BANK OF AMERICA NA; MERS; JANE DOES 1-1000, ficticious names, 

true names unknown; FIRST FINANCIAL EQUITIES, INC.; 

DAVID SADEK; MICHAEL D. COLE; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP; 

MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM INC.; 

STERN, LAVINTHAL & FRANKENBERG LLC; 

ROBERT RYNIAK; PNC BANK; METLIFE BANK, N.A.; FNMA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.N.J. Civil Action No. 2-14-cv-02369)

District Judge: Honorable Faith S. Hochberg

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 22, 2015

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 23, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1758 Document: 003112162906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
2

PER CURIAM

Susan Batista, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing her second amended complaint. For the 

reasons that follow, we will affirm.

In 2014, Batista filed a complaint in New Jersey state court against Countrywide 

Home Loans, Inc. and other defendants claiming that they committed fraud in connection 

with her mortgage and in a state foreclosure action brought against her in 2008. Batista 

also claimed that the defendants violated New Jersey statutes and the federal Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). 

The defendants removed the action to District Court and moved to dismiss the 

complaint. The defendants asserted, among other things, that Batista failed to state a 

claim for relief and that her claim under the FDCPA appeared to be time-barred. Batista 

moved to amend her complaint. The District Court granted the motion to amend and 

allowed Batista to plead additional facts, including facts regarding whether her claims 

were time-barred. The District Court dismissed the motion to dismiss as moot. 

Batista filed an amended complaint naming more defendants and setting forth 

numerous causes of action, including conspiracy, fraud, criminal violations, and 

violations of the FDCPA and other statutes. Countrywide Home Loans and other 

defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on several grounds, including a 

failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 

The District Court found Batista’s lengthy list of purported causes of action 

Case: 15-1758 Document: 003112162906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
3

unintelligible and without factual substance, and ruled that the complaint failed to satisfy 

Rule 8. The District Court stated that Batista failed to allege specific actionable conduct 

and connect any wrongful conduct to a particular defendant. The District Court granted 

the motion to dismiss, but in light of Batista’s pro se status, allowed her to file a second 

amended complaint. The District Court stated in its order that Batista needed to identify 

her causes of action in separate sections and plead specific facts with respect to each 

defendant. The District Court warned that a failure to do so would result in dismissal of 

the complaint with prejudice. 

Batista then filed a 53-page, handwritten, second amended complaint naming 

fourteen defendants and setting forth fifteen counts against the defendants collectively. 

Countrywide Home Loans and other defendants filed another motion to dismiss asserting 

that Batista had failed to comply with the District Court’s prior order and Rule 8 and had 

failed to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). 

The District Court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint 

with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. The District Court explained that 

Batista’s claims under the FDCPA were either untimely or conclusory and failed to notify 

the defendants of their alleged wrongful conduct. The District Court ruled that Batista’s 

remaining allegations suffered from the previously-identified deficiencies, including a 

failure to attribute wrongful conduct to any particular defendant and to allege facts in 

support of her claims. The District Court decided that allowing further amendment 

would be futile. This appeal followed.

Case: 15-1758 Document: 003112162906 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
4

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 Our standard of review of the 

dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is de novo. Phillips v. County of 

Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2008). 

Batista’s appellate brief, like her second amended complaint, is for the most part 

unintelligible and she has not shown any error on the part of the District Court. The 

record also supports the District Court’s decision. To the extent Batista disputes the 

statute of limitations ruling on her claims under the FDCPA, as noted by the District 

Court, some of Batista’s allegations relate to the time period prior to the filing of the 

foreclosure action in 2008 and to purported communications in 2011. See Glover v. 

F.D.I.C., 698 F.3d 139, 148 (3d Cir. 2012) (one-year statute of limitations applies to 

alleged violations of the FDCPA). To the extent Batista asserts violations of the FDCPA 

that are not time-barred, her allegations are either conclusory or insufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a complaint 

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible 

on its face). 

The District Court also did not err in dismissing Batista’s remaining claims of 

fraud and various statutory violations. The factual allegations supporting these claims are 

difficult to discern. Batista primarily avers that assignments of her loan were improper 

 

1Although not all of the named defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the District Court’s 

order was in effect a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint as to all parties. Cf. Roman v. 

Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 196 (3d Cir. 1990) (noting district court may sua sponte raise the 

deficiency of a complaint if the plaintiff is given an opportunity to address it). Batista 

was given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in her complaint.

Case: 15-1758 Document: 003112162906 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
5

and that the defendants did not validate the debt, but, as recognized by the District Court, 

these allegations are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

 

Case: 15-1758 Document: 003112162906 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/23/2015