UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRIAN G. WILLIAMS, 

 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-14693 

 Honorable Sean F. Cox 

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, and 

REDC, LLC d/b/a Auction.com, 

 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

GRANT REDC, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS [9] 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Plaintiff Brian G. Williams filed this action in state court against 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), NationStar 

Mortgage, LLC (“NationStar”), and REDC, LLC d/b/a Auction.com 

(“REDC”), alleging wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and fraud. [1-

2]. Before the Court is REDC’s motion to dismiss [9]1

, which was referred 

to the undersigned for Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B). [10]. For the following reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS 

 

1

 The Court will address MERS and NationStar’s motion to dismiss [4] and 

Williams’ motion for leave to amend the complaint [16] in a separate report 

and recommendation on a later date. 

2:14-cv-14693-SFC-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 03/26/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 464
2 

that REDC’s motion to dismiss [9] be GRANTED. 

II. DISCUSSION 

On December 11, 2014, MERS and NationStar – with REDC’s 

consent – removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. 

[1]. In the notice of removal, they acknowledge that REDC has the same 

citizenship as Williams for diversity jurisdiction purposes, but say that this 

does not preclude diversity jurisdiction because Williams fraudulently joined 

REDC in the action. [1, Pg ID 4-5]. 

 On January 21, 2015, REDC filed a motion to dismiss alleging that it 

was fraudulently joined in order to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction, as 

evidenced by the fact that Williams’ claims against REDC lack factual 

support: 

Plaintiff’s claims against REDC are without support, as (1) 

Plaintiff has not and cannot allege the existence of a contract 

between himself and Auction.com; (2) Plaintiff has not and 

cannot allege that REDC has claimed or might claim an interest 

in the property, necessary to support [his] wrongful foreclosure 

claim; and (3) Plaintiff has not and cannot plead facts sufficient 

to support a fraud claim, as REDC has had no contact or 

interaction with Plaintiff . 

 

[9, Pg ID 164-65]. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 permits a court to drop a party 

who has been misjoined in an action. Fraudulent joinder exists where a 

plaintiff adds a non-diverse defendant against which he cannot establish a 

2:14-cv-14693-SFC-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 03/26/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 465
3 

cause of action under state law. See Coyne v. American Tobacco Co., 183 

F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 1999). Here, Williams did not respond to REDC’s 

motion to dismiss and has not otherwise disputed the claim that REDC was 

fraudulently joined. To the contrary, on February 27, 2015, Williams filed a 

motion for leave to amend the complaint which, if granted, would drop 

REDC as a defendant. [16-2, Pg ID 303-316]. 

 Thus, the Court finds that REDC was fraudulently joined, and it 

should be dropped from this action pursuant to Rule 21. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that REDC’s 

motion to dismiss [9] be GRANTED and that REDC be DISMISSED from 

this action. 

 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Dated: March 26, 2015 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

 Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 

72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

2:14-cv-14693-SFC-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 03/26/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 466
4 

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but 

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of 

HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection 

must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

 Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” 

etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in 

length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page 

limitation. 

2:14-cv-14693-SFC-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 03/26/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 467
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 26, 2015. 

 s/Marlena Williams 

 MARLENA WILLIAMS 

 Case Manager 

2:14-cv-14693-SFC-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 03/26/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 468