[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 15 37 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -0 07 68 -WSD FRED MILANI, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ONE W EST BANK FSB, U. S. BANK NAT IONAL ASSOCIATION, et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 1 7, 2 01 2) Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d EDMONDSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pl ai nt iff FredMi la ni ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f Defen da nt s’ se ve ral m ot io ns to di sm is s. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . Case: 11-15378 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 1 of 8BACKGROUND

Pl ai nt iff’s com

pl ai ntin cl ud edfact s an d a ll eg at io ns rel at edto for ecl os ur e pr oc eed in gs tak enon Pla in ti ff’s h om e, real pro pe rty loc at edat 3 68 7 B riarcl iff Ro ad , Atl an ta , Geor gi a (“ th e p ro pe rty”). Plai nt iff s co m pl ai ntna m edsev eral de fen da nt s, ch ie fly sev eral lar ge fin an ci al in st itut io ns : On eWestBan k, FS B; U.S. Ban k Nat io na l As so c.; Deu ts ch e Ban k Nat io na l Tru stCo .; Mo rtg ag e Ele ctro ni c Reg is tra ti on Sy st em s, In c.; ABN Am ro Ban k, N.V.; Au ro ra Lo anServ ic es LLC; an d c ert ai n fi ct it io us pa rti es (to ge th er, “ th e Defen da nt s” ). Bas edonth e fac ts in 1 th e co m pl ai nt , Pla in ti ff rai se d c la im s fo r a d ecl arat ory jud gm en t; anem erg en cy te m po rary restrai ni ng ord er an d i nju nc ti on ; wro ng fu l fo recl os ur e; frau d; an d qui et ti tl e. In20 05 , Pla in ti ff ref in an cedso m e ex is ti ng de btth atwas s ecu redby his ho m e b y en te rin g i nt o atra ns act io n wi thInd yMac Ban k, FS B. As p artof t hi s tra ns act io n, Pl ai nt iff

si gn edanad

jus tabl e-ra te no te pro m is in g t o p ay cert ai n m on ie s an d a“ Secu rit y

Deed ” th atgra nt edDefen da ntMo rtg ag e Ele ctro ni c Reg is tra ti on Sy st em s, In c. (“ MERS” ) a “po wer o f sa le ” o n t he pro pe rty. Plai nt iff Plaintiff initi ally

filed this action in the Superior Court of D eKa lb County , Geor g ia. A short 1 time later, the a ction was re moved to the United States District Court for the Norther n District of Geor g ia. 2

Case: 11-15378 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 2 of 8ha s s in ce fa il edto m ak e o ne or m or e o f th e p aym en ts cal le d fo r un de r th e 2 00 5

no te , andDefen dantOneWestBan k, FS B (“ One W es t” ) ha s b eg un for ecl os ur e pr oc eed in gs on th e p ro pe rty. 2 Bri efl y st at ed , Pla in ti ff’s co m

pl ai ntall eg edth atDefen da ntOneWestis in cap ab le of p ro pe rly fore cl os in g o n t he pro pe rty becaus e th e Defen da nt s

“ se parat edth e p ert in en t n ot e an d s ecu rit y de edin th e p ro ces s o f en ga gi ng in th e

“ il le ga l s ch em e o f se curit iz at io n o f res id en ti al m ortg ag es ” -- l eav in g the no te un se curedan d t he sec ur ity de edun en fo rceabl e -- an d b ecau se cert ai n o f th e as si gn m en ts of t he pe rti ne ntsec ur it y de edwere fraudul en t o r “ do ct or ed .” 3 The di stric t co urt g ran te d Def en da nt s’ sev eral m ot io ns to di sm is s, wi th pr ejud ic e. The d is tri ctco urt n ot edin pa rti cu la r th atPla in ti ff h adfai le d t o a ll eg e

4 fact s s uf fic ie ntto supp ort h is arg um en t tha t Def en da ntOneWestho ld s n o v al id se cu rit y de edan d p owe r of

sal e; th atth e fac ts Pla in ti ff al le ge d c on tra di ct edhi s

Acc ordingto the complaint (which quote s assignment documents held by Def endant 2 OneWest), De fenda

nt MERS assig ned the pe rtinent security deed to Indy

Mac F eder al B ank, FSB , which -- with the FDI C actingas re ceive r -- then assigned the se curity deed to De fenda

nt OneWest. L ater , a “c orre ctive assignment” wa s also made f rom Indy Mac F eder al B ank, F SB -- with the FDI C actingas re ceive r -- to Defe ndant OneWest. The c omplaint also contends that Def endant One West failed to comply with the require d 3 contra ctual provisions containe d in the security deed when One West ini tiated fore closure proce eding s ag ainst the proper ty . Be fore g rantingDef

endant U.S. B ank National Assoc.’s motion to dism iss, the district court 4 g rante d the bank’ s Motion to S et Aside De fault. 3

Case: 11-15378 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 3 of 8cl ai m s; th atPla in ti ff h adfai le d t o p ro vi de a factua l o r le ga l b as is forhi s

“ se parat io n” arg um en t; an d t ha t al lo win g P la in ti ff t o a m en d h is co m pl ai ntwou ld be fut il e. STANDARD OF REVIEW

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt's de ci si on to gra nta m ot io n t o s etasi de th e en try of a de fau ltjud gm en t fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Ro bi ns on v. Un it edSta te s, 73 4 F .2d73 5, 7 39 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f a cas e p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 1 2( b) (6 ) de no vo . Catro n v . Cit y of S t. Pe te rs bu rg , 65 8 F .3d12 60 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o g ran t l eav e to am en d a co m pl ai ntforab us e o f di sc ret io n, b utwe rev ie w th e le ga l co nc lu si on th at am en dm en t wo ul d b e fu ti le de no vo . Harris v. Iv ax Co rp ., 18 2 F .3d79 9, 8 02 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . A “ co m pl ai ntm us t co nt ai n s uf

fic ie ntfactua l m atte r, acce pt edas t ru e, to ‘stat e a cl ai m

to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .’ ” Ash cro ft v . Iqb al , 12 9 S . Ct. 19 37 , 19 49 (20 09 ) (quo ti ng Bel l At l. Co rp . v. Twom bl y , 12 7 S . Ct. 1 95 5, 1 97 4 (2 00 7) ). To s ta te a pl au si bl e cl ai m forrel ie f, Pla in ti ffs m

us t g o b ey on d m erel y 4 Case: 11-15378 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 4 of 8pl ead in g t he “ sh eer p os si bi li ty” of u nl awfu l ac ti vi ty by a de fen da ntan d s o m

us t of fer “ factua l co nt en t t ha t al lo ws t he co urt t o d raw the reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e d efen da ntis li ab le forth e m is co nduc t al le ge d.” Id.

DISCUSS ION

As t he di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y no te d, t o p ur su e p ro pe rly a dec la rat ory jud gm en t u nd er Geo rg ialaw “ a p art y m us t es tabl is h t ha t [ade cl arat ory jud gm en t] is ne ces sa ry

to rel ie ve hi m se lf o f th e ri skof t ak in g s om e fu tu re ac ti on th at , witho ut di rect io n, wo ul d jeo pa rd iz e h is in te res ts .” Po rte r v. Ho ug ht on , 54 2 S .E.2d49 1, 49 2 (Ga . 20 01 ). No u nc ert ai nt y ex is ts ab ou t an y

futur e act io n b y

Pla in ti ff i n t hi s cas e; Pla in ti ff h as alr ead y de fau lt edon th e p ert in en t n ot e. On the fact s o f th is cas e, a d ecl arat ory

jud gm en t i s u na va il ab le be cau se all m at eri al rig ht s h av e accrue d b as edon pa stev en ts an d wh atPla in ti ff s eek s i s an advi so ry op in io n o n th e v al id it y

of t he futur e actof a no th er p arty . See Lo ga n P av in g C o. v . Peo pl es Ban k & Trus t, 3 95 S.E.2d28 7, 2 88 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 90 ).

“ InGeor gi a, a p la in ti ff as se rti ng a cl ai m of wro ng fu l fo recl os ur e m us t es tabl is h aleg al du ty owedto itby the for ecl os in g p arty , a br each of t ha t dut y , a cau sa l co nn ect io n b etween th e b reac h o f th atdu ty andth e in jury it s us ta in ed , and 5 Case: 11-15378 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 5 of 8da m ag es .” Greg or ak os v. Well s Farg o Nat ’l Ass 'n, 6 47 S.E.2d28 9, 2 92 (Ga. Ct .

App . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . No Geo rg ialaw o pe rat es to de featth e u se of t he pe rti ne ntsec ur it y de edin a fo recl os ur e p ro ceed in g. Un de r Geo rg ialaw, a s ecu rit y de edwhi ch in cl ud es a po wer o f sa le is a co nt ractth atco nt ro ls “ th e ri gh ts of t he pa rti es th eret o andth ei r pr iv ie s.” Go rd on v. S. Ce nt . Farm Cred it , ACA, 44 6 S .E.2d51 4, 5 15 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 94 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The as si gn m en t o f th e p ert in en t s ecu rit y de ed di m in is he d n on e o f th e in stru m en t’s p owe rs . See Ga. Co de Ann . 44 -1 4- 64 (b ); Ga . Co de Ann . 23 -2 -1 14 . The factua l al le ga ti on s i n P la in ti ff’s co m pl ai ntest ab li sh th atPla in ti ff h as de fau lt edon th e p ert in en t l oa n o bl ig at io n; th atth e p ert in en t s ecu rit y de ed-- si gn edby Plai nt iff

-- was ass ig ne d fr om

Defen dantMERS t o In dyMac Fe de ral Ban k, FS B to Defen da ntOneWest ; an d t ha t On eWestis no w in it ia ti ng for ecl os ur e pr oc eed in gs on th e p ro pe rty. On th e fac ts pre se nt ed , Pla in ti ff’s co m pl ai ntdo es no t co nt ai n s uf

fic ie ntfactua l m at te r -- ac cep te d a s t ru e -- t o s ta te a wro ng fu l fo recl os ur e cl ai m

th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face . The fai lu re o f Pl ai nt iff’s com pl ai ntto st at e su ffi ci en tl y a cl ai m for wron gf ul fo recl os ur e im

pa ct s o n P la in ti ff’s qui etti tl e cl ai m . A pla in ti ff p ur su in g aqu ie t ti tl e act io n i n Geo rg ia“ m us t as se rt t ha t h e h ol ds so m e cu rren t re co rdti tl e o r

6 Case: 11-15378 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 6 of 8cu rren t p res cri pt iv e ti tl e, in ord er t o m ai nt ai n h is su it .” Sm it h v . Geor gi a Kao li n

Co ., Inc ., 49 8 S .E.2d26 6, 2 67 -6 8 (Ga . 19 98 ) (em ph as is om it te d) (qu ot at io n om it te d) . Plai nt iff’s com pl ai ntst at es th athe si gn edov er l eg al ti tl e to th e p ro pe rty whe n h e si gn edth e p ert in en t s ecu rit y de ed ; h is cla im

of t it le is pre m is edon One W es t’s t it le havi ng a fat al de fect . Abs en t a p ro pe rly-supp orte d c la im th at One W es t’s t it le ha s s om e fat al de fectpre ve nt in g p ro pe r fo recl os ur e, Pl ai nt iff’s co m pl ai ntdo es no t co nt ai n s uf fic ie ntfactua l m at te r -- ev enwhen acce pt edas t ru e -- t o s ta te a qu ie t t it le cla im th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face . InGeor gi a, “ [t]he to rt o f frau d h as fiv e el em en ts : a f al se rep res en ta ti on by a de fen da nt , sci en te r, in te nt io n t o i nduc e th e p la in ti ff t o a ctor r efra in fro m act in g, jus ti fiabl e rel ia nc e b y

th e p la in ti ff, an d d am ag e to th e p la in ti ff.” Ba xt er v . Fai rfi el d F in . Serv s., In c., 70 4 S .E.2d42 3, 4 29 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Serc hi on v. Caps to ne Part ne rs , Inc ., 67 9 S .E.2d40 , 43 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 09 ). Co nc eal m en t o f m at eri al in fo rm at io n c ansupp ort a f rau d c la im , bu t a p arty

can on ly be h el d l iabl e und er s uc h ath eo ry if t he pa rty has a du ty to d is cl os e o r co m m un ic at e th e m at eri al in fo rm at io n. Se e Id . Pl ai nt iff ha s fa il edto id en ti fy

with p art ic ul ari ty a m at eri al ly fals e rep res en ta ti on m ad e b y

Defen da nt s, o r an y

va li d g ro un d upo n wh ic h t he Defen da nt s co ul d b e h el d l iabl e fo r co nc eal in g m at eri al in fo rm at io n. Ab se ntth e 7 Case: 11-15378 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 7 of 8pr op er i de nt ifi cat io n o f a fal se rep res en ta ti on m ad e b y Defen da nt s, Pl ai nt iff’s co m pl ai ntdo es no t co nt ai n s uf fic ie ntfactua l m at te r -- ac cep te d a s t ru e -- t o s ta te a frau d c la im

th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face . 5 On t he fact s, i t was no erro r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o d en y Pla in ti ff l eav e to am en d h is co m

pl ai nt ; an y

am en dm en t wo ul d b e fu ti le . Also , th e d is tri ctco urt act edwithi n i ts pro pe r di sc ret io n i n s et ti ng asi de U.S. Ban k’s d efau lt . AFFIR MED.

Plaintiff’s failure to state properly a wr ong ful fore closure c laim, a fra ud claim, or a

quiet title 5 claim pre vents Plaintiff from prope rly supporting a

ny reque st for injunctive re lief in this case. 8 Case: 11-15378 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 8 of 8