Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01895/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01895-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

M. Theresa de Mol; and Robert G.

Turrill II, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Grand Canyon Title Agency Inc;

Phoenix Settlement Services LLC;

Empire West Title Agency; Biltmore

Bank of Arizona; Lawyers Title of

Arizona; and Coppercrest Leveraged

Mortgage Fund LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1895-PHX-DGC

ORDER

M. Theresa de Mol owned real property in the Sedona area. She was sued in state

court on a claim for specific performance. See Auffret v. de Mol, No. CV2009-052086

(Ariz. Super. Ct. Apr. 28, 2009). She then brought her own state court action to rescind an

alleged predatory mortgage loan and to stave off foreclosure of the Sedona property. See

de Mol v. Coppercrest Funding LLC, No. CV2009-017469 (Ariz. Super. Ct. June 1, 2009).

A settlement conference with Judge Burke was held, and the parties to each suit entered into

a binding and complete settlement agreement. See de Mol, No. CV2009-017469 (Ariz.

Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2009) (minute entry setting forth terms of settlement and dismissing

cases); Doc. 1-1 at 42-71. A judgment enforcing that agreement was entered by Judge Hicks.

See de Mol, No. CV2009-017469 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Sept. 15, 2009); Doc. 1-1 at 29-36.

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 58 Filed 01/27/11 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Ms. de Mol and her associate, Robert Turrill, filed suit in this Court one year later.

The complaint sought relief from the state court judgment, to challenge the constitutionality

of the settlement agreement and an Arizona recording statute, and to assert a consumer fraud

claim. Doc. 1. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Doc. 6. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint. Doc. 15.

Motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) have been filed by Lawyers Title

of Arizona (“Lawyers Title”), Coppercrest Leveraged Mortgage Fund LLC (“Coppercrest”),

Phoenix Settlement Services LLC (“PSS”) and Empire West Title Agency (“Empire West”),

and Biltmore Bank of Arizona (“Biltmore Bank”). Docs. 18, 21, 27, 28. Grand Canyon Title

Agency, Inc. (“Grand Canyon”) has joined the motions filed by Lawyers Title and

Coppercrest. Doc. 25. The motions are fully briefed. No party has requested oral argument.

For reasons that follow, the motions will be granted.

I. Dismissal.

As previously explained to Plaintiffs (Doc. 6), this federal Court is a court of limited

jurisdiction, and “the presumption is that it is without jurisdiction unless the contrary

affirmatively appears.” Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th

Cir. 1970). Pursuant to federal statutes, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases

that present federal questions, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, or diversity of citizenship among the

parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The amended complaint asserts no federal claim. The complaint purports to assert

diversity jurisdiction, alleging that “complete diversity of citizenship exists among the

parties” and § 1332 therefore “gives this court jurisdiction to hear this consumer fraud case.”

Doc. 15 ¶ 1. But jurisdiction under § 1332 requires more than complete diversity. The

complaint also must show that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Defendants note, correctly, that the complaint asserts no specific cause of action and

seeks no compensatory damages. Instead, it requests various forms of injunctive relief,

including orders from the Court requiring Defendants to perform certain acts. Ms. de Mol

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 58 Filed 01/27/11 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

demands that a loan “be properly cancelled and that the Original endorsement pages that

were unlawfully detached from her Notes be properly cancelled and returned to her.”

Doc. 15 ¶ 11. She further “demands that she be fully released from any and all other loans,

past, present and future.” Id. ¶ 12. The complaint goes on to request orders compelling

specific action in connection with loans and related documents on the part of Grand Canyon

(id. ¶¶19-24), Lawyers Title (id. ¶¶ 39-46), Biltmore Bank (id. ¶¶ 52-57), PSS and Empire

West (id. ¶¶ 65-71), and, finally, Coppercrest (id. ¶¶ 91-93). The complaint seeks punitive

damages against Defendants for “committing identity theft” (id. ¶ 95) and for “vandalizing

Ms. de Mol’s loan documents and creating and recording fraudulent releases (id. ¶ 94), but

no amount of damages is specified.

“The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts.”

Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v.

Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)); see Fenton v. Freedman,

748 F.2d 1358, 1359, n.1 (9th Cir. 1984). The allegations of the amended complaint, even

when construed liberally in Plaintiffs’ favor, see Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th

Cir. 1987), do not show that the matter in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount of

$75,000. The Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (h)(3)

II. Leave to Amend.

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a second amended complaint to add two new defendants

(Yavapai Title Agency, Inc. and Pioneer Title Agency, Inc.), to clarify that the purported

claims for conspiracy to commit identity theft and fraud exceed $75,000 in damages, and to

reassert their original constitutional claims against Judge Burke for refusing to grant Ms. de

Mol a temporary restraining order. Doc. 53. Defendants oppose leave to amend. Docs. 54,

55, 57.

The Court recognizes its obligation to freely give leave to amend when justice so

requires, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and to “ensure that pro se litigants do not unwittingly fall

victim to procedural requirements,” Waters v. Young, 100 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996).

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 58 Filed 01/27/11 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

To this end, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the original complaint and provided

advice on the pleading requirements of Rule 8. Doc. 6. Plaintiffs have now had two

opportunities to provide a sufficient jurisdictional statement and to state valid claims to relief

against each Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544

(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Although they are proceeding pro se,

Plaintiffs “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986).

Having considered the motion to amend (Doc. 53) and the allegations in the proposed

second amended complaint (Doc. 53-1), the Court concludes that leave to amend would be

futile. The proposed second complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8,

as interpreted by Twombly and Iqbal. Plaintiffs claim that all “Defendants named in this case

are enterprises who committed numerous felony acts of fraud against Ms. de Mol in

furtherance of a multi-state Note scheme.” Doc. 20 at 7. But the complaint’s allegations of

fraud and conspiracy are not plausible. Plaintiffs see fraud where it does not exist. For

example, they claim that Defendants and their counsel have committed fraud upon the Court

by, among other things, misidentifying parties, shortening names and using acronyms to

identify parties in briefs, making innocent mistakes as to loan dates, not including the

undersigned’s name in the case number and transposing numbers, and joining motions filed

by co-defendants. See, e.g., Docs. 38, 41 50. Plaintiffs go so far as to accuse court

employees of deliberately falsifying this District’s docket in order to protect a state court

clerk and to “maliciously inflict” further damage on Ms. de Mol. Doc. 8. Those serious, but

false, accusations are based on nothing more than immaterial descriptions of the case in

docket headings and the fact that Plaintiffs had sued the Maricopa County Clerk of Court

Office and the docket erroneously lists Maricopa County Superior Court as a defendant. See

Docs. 8, 23, 36, 37.

The Court finds that the proposed second amended complaint is deficient, as were the

original and the first amended complaints. In addition to their extensive litigation activities

in state court, Plaintiffs have had two opportunities to plead a viable claim in this Court, and

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 58 Filed 01/27/11 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

their proposed third attempt is equally deficient. Leave to amend therefore will be denied

and the case dismissed with prejudice. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1174, 1179-80

(9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of amended complaint where it failed to satisfy Rule 8’s

pleading requirements); Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051, 1055

(“futility of amendment alone can justify denial of a motion [to amend]”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motions to dismiss (Docs. 18, 21, 27, 28) are granted.

2. The amended complaint (Doc. 15) is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

3. The alternative motion for more definite statement (Doc. 46) is denied as moot.

4. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend (Doc. 53) is denied. 

5. Plaintiffs’ motions to strike (Docs. 33, 42) are denied.

6. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this action with prejudice.

DATED this 27th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 58 Filed 01/27/11 Page 5 of 5