IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

Willantha Collins-Hardin, )

) Case No. 12 C 50099

Plaintiff, )

)

 vs. )

)

WM Specialty Mortgage LLC, et al., )

) Judge Philip G. Reinhard

Defendant. )

)

ORDER

For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff is granted one more opportunity to file a complaint that complies with the

federal rules. Amended complaint to be filed on or before February 28, 2014. 

STATEMENT-OPINION

Plaintiff, Willantha Collins-Hardin, pro se, brings this action via her second amended

complaint [62] (hereinafter the “Complaint”). The Complaint cites some federal statutes- i.e.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 1952 and

makes reference to all defendants being “state actors.” Subject matter jurisdiction apparently is

therefore premised on federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

 On its cover page, the Complaint lists sixteen defendants. Eight of them appear not to

have been served with process. The other eight have each separately moved to dismiss for 1

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The

 The court notes that Magistrate Judge Johnston has scheduled a status conference to 1

address the service of process issues with plaintiff on 1/28/2014. Plaintiff filed her second

amended complaint on June 21, 2013 about 7 months ago. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) requires service

within 120 days after a complaint is filed unless plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to

effectuate service. Plaintiff has been given an extended period beyond that provided by the rule

to obtain service. The court, today, is giving plaintiff until 2/28/2014 to file a third amended

complaint. On or before 3/28/2014, plaintiff must properly serve (and file proper proof of

service) the 8 defendants who have not entered appearances in this matter (assuming she can

state a good faith claim against them) with her third amended complaint (once it has been filed)

or those defendants will be dismissed for failure to obtain service upon them.

1

Case: 3:12-cv-50099 Document #: 141 Filed: 01/17/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:716
defendants moving to dismiss are: Scott Carlson [70], Corelogic Tax Services, LLC [85], Lydia

Meyer (the Chapter 13 Trustee of plaintiff’s bankruptcy estate) [97], John Murray [99], Tom

Klein [105], Codilis & Associates, P.C. [109], Option One Mortgage Corp, n/k/a Sand Canyon

Corp. [113] and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. [125].

The Complaint fails to meet the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 & 10. Rule

10(b) requires claims to be stated “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a

single set of circumstances.” Rule 8(a)(1) requires “a short and plain statement of the grounds

for the court’s jurisdiction” and Rule 8(b)(2) requires “a short plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. 

 The Complaint is in five counts. Count I has numerous unnumbered paragraphs. The

remaining counts (Counts II, III, IV, and V) each consists of one lengthy paragraph. This fails to

comply with Rule 10(b)’s requirement for limited numbered paragraphs. 

The Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction. While it cites some federal statutes, and references “state actors” implying some

kind of Section 1983 claim, it never actually states why this court has subject matter jurisdiction.

From the complaint’s allegations, it is not possible to sort out which defendants are

alleged to be responsible for which wrongs or exactly what those alleged wrongs are. The

confusing nature of the complaint’s allegations deprive the defendants of notice as to what claims

are being advanced against each of them. 

Some of the defendants also raise Rooker-Feldman as a basis for dismissal claiming this

action is an attempt to overturn the state court judgment of foreclosure. Defendant Meyer argues

she must be dismissed because as the Chapter 13 trustee plaintiff must obtain permission from

the bankruptcy court that appointed Meyer trustee before plaintiff can sue her. While both of

these defenses may well apply, the court is not going to consider them at this point. The

confusing nature of the complaint makes ruling on any basis other than the failure to comply with

Rules 8 and 10 too speculative.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff is granted one more opportunity to file a complaint that complies with the

federal rules. Amended complaint to be filed on or before February 28, 2014. The amended

complaint shall contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. Per Rule 10(b), the amended complaint shall separate the claims into separate

counts specifically identifying in each count which defendant or defendants the count is against. 

Each count shall contain numbered paragraphs with each paragraph limited to alleging a single

fact/occurrence or claim. Plaintiff is advised that any claims involving fraud must meet the

pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Rule 9(b) requires plaintiff to “state with particularity

the circumstances constituting fraud.” This means pleading the “who, what, when, where, and

how” of each alleged fraudulent act. See Reger Development, LLC v. Nat’l City Bank, 592 F.3d

2

Case: 3:12-cv-50099 Document #: 141 Filed: 01/17/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:717
759, 764 (7 Cir.2010). Any amended complaint must comply with the requirements of Fed. R. th

Civ. P. 11, meaning plaintiff must have a good faith basis for her claim against any named

defendant. Plaintiff should take particular care in evaluating whether she can state a good faith

claim against defendant Lydia Meyer, the Winnebago County personnel, and the defendants

raising Rooker-Feldman defenses. Filing a third amended complaint with claims that do not

have a good faith basis will result in sanctions against plaintiff under Federal Rule 11.

Date 1/17/2014 ENTER:

 

 United States District Court Judge

Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (LC)

3

Case: 3:12-cv-50099 Document #: 141 Filed: 01/17/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:718