Th e Com pla int name s “A me ri c an Titl e ” and “ Cur ra n & F ish e r” a s def

e nd ants , an d the n re fe rs to 1 a “ Cur ra n & Sul liv an” in i ts f

a c tua l a lle g atio ns . T he Court a ssume s that “A me ri c a Ti tle ” re fe rs to First Amer ican Title Insuranc e Company , who issued the title policy for Plaintiff’s mortg ag e, and that “Curra

n & F isher” a

nd “Curra n & Sullivan” r efe r to Curran & O’S u l livan, the law f irm that handled the f

orec losure of Plaintiff’s pr operty
. SeeDef .’s Mot. to Dismis s [Dkt. # 2] at 2 n.3. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) JEAN K ELL Y, ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1695 (RM C) ) NOVASTAR, e t al

. , ) ) Defendan ts. ) ) M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff J ean K elly

filed a c omplaint in thi s matter on Oc to b er 3, 2008, seeking damag es, a de clar atory

judgme nt and inj unctive re lief ag ainst Defe ndants NovaStar Mor tga g e, Inc. (“No va Star” ), F ir st H or izon Ho me L oa n Cor po ratio n (“ F ir st Ho ri zon ” ), Sa xon Mo rt g a g e Se rv ic e s, Inc. (“S ax o n ”) , First Amer ican Title Insuranc e Company (“A merica

n Title”), a

nd Curran & O’Sullivan. See Dkt. # 1. Def endants NovaStar and Sax on move to dismi ss this case for improper 1
ve nu e purs ua

nt to F e de ra l Rul e of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 12 (b )( 3) and fa ilure to s tate a

c la im p ur su ant t o Rul e 12 (b )( 6) . D e f. ’s Mo t. t o D ism iss [Dk t. # 2]. T he y

a lso argue th at P lain tif

f’ s c la ims a g a ins t N o v a S t ar ar e b ar r e d b y re s ju dic ata . Fo r t h e re as o ns set forth below, the Court will gra nt Def endants’ motion on the g rounds that venue is improper her e. I. BACKG ROUND In October

2006, Plaintiff filed an action in the U.S . District Court for the District-2-

of Mar yla n d a ll e g in g brea ch of c ontrac t, unjust enrichment, conve rsion, fra udulent conce alment, and vio latio ns of

the Tru th in L e nd ingAc t, a ll r e latin gto a pr omi sso ry

no te fo r P la int if

f’ s p ro pe rt

y in Maryland. See Ke ll

y v. Novastar Mortgage, Inc ., Civ. No. AW-06-2616 (D. Md.) ( Cmpl. [ Dkt. # 1] f ile d O c t. 4 , 2 00 6) . T wo de fe nd ants in t hat matte r, No va Sta

r a nd F ir st Hor iz on , ar e a lso defe ndants in this action. I n Dec ember 2006, the Mary

land ac tion was dismissed pursuant to Fede ral Rul e of Civ il Pr oc e dure 12 (b )( 6) . T wo y e ars late r, in Oc tob e r 20 08 , Pla int if f fi le d thi s c a se . T his
case also revolve s around the tr ansfe r of Pl ai n t i ff’s m ortg ag e note among or betwee n various de fe nd ants . Co mpl . [D kt. # 1 ] at 1-3
. Pla int if f now a lle g e s sev e ra l viol atio ns of fe de ra l and

state law, includingviolations of the Securities Exchang e Ac t of 1934 and the Rac ketee r Influenc ed and Corrupt Org anizations Ac t , ea ch o f which provides a private civil cause of ac tion. See 15 U. S.C. § 78i(e); 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)
. II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (3) provides that a ca se may be dismissed for improper ve nue upon motion. See H unter v. J ohanns , 517 F. Supp. 2d 340, 343 (D.D .C. 2007); Fed. R. C iv. P. 1 2( b) (3 ). “ B e c a us e it i s th e pla int if

f’ s obli g atio n to insti tut e the a c tio n in a pe rm iss ibl e forum, the plaintiff usually bear s the burden of establishing that venue is prope r.” Fr e e ma n v . F all in , 254 F. Supp. 2d 52, 56 (D.D.C. 2003). H oweve r, “[i] n consideringa Rule 12(b) (3) motion, the cour t
a c c e pts the pla int if

f' s w e ll- ple d f

a c tua l a lle g atio ns re g ardin g v enu e as tr ue , d ra ws a ll r e a so na

ble infere nces f

rom those alleg ations in the plaintiff' s favor , and re solves any fac tual confl i ct s i n the plaintiff' s favor .” D a r b

yv . U

. S

. D e p ’ t o f E nergy , 2 3 1 F. Supp. 2d 274, 276 (D.D .C. 2002). To preva il on a motion to di smiss for improper venue, a defenda nt must prese nt fac ts sufficie nt to defeat a plaintiff' s assertion of ve nue. Id. ; 2215 Fifth St. Assocs. v. U-Haul Int’l, I nc. , 148 F. Supp. 2d 50,-3-

54 (D.D.C. 2001) ( citing 5A . Fe d. Prac. & Proc. 2d § 1352). III . A NA LY SIS Plaintiff has not established that venue is proper he re. In a civi l ac tion where jurisdiction is notfounded on dive rsity of citizenship, venue is appropr iate in a district whe re a ny de fe nd ant r e sid e s, if

a ll d e fe nd ants re sid e in t

he same state , o r whe re “ a su bs tanti a l pa

rt of the e ve nts or omissions givingrise to the cla im occurr ed, or a substantial pa rt of proper

ty that is the subject of the ac tion is si tuated.” 28 U .S.C. § 1391(b). No Def endant resides in the District of Columbia and the e ve nts g ivi ngri se to t

he c la im o c c ur

re d e nti re ly

in Mary land
. Th e pr op e rt

y to whic h th e no te in question relate s is also located in Mar yland. Plaintiff offe rs absolutely no facts or law in her Com pla int , D kt. # 1, or in he r Op po sit ion to D e fe nd ant’ s Mo tio n to Di smi ss, Dk t. # 9, that e sta

bli sh that venue is prope r in D.C.

“ Whe n a pla int if f f ile s an a c tio n in

the wr on gdis tr ic t, 2 8 U .S. C. § 14 06 (a ) d ir e c ts courts ‘to dismiss , or if it be in the interest of justice, transfe r such case ’ to the p ro p erv enue.” Darby , 2 3 1 F
. Su

p p . 2 d at 2 7 7 ( D
. D
. C. 2 0 0 2 ) ( qu o ti n g 2 8 U
. S. C. § 1 4 0 6 ( a ) )
. N o n e th e less, the Court declines to transf

er this ca se to the District of M ar y l an d b ecause it is not in the interest of justice to do so. Plaintiff has fa iled to effe ct servic e upon F irst Horizon, American T itle, and Curra n & O’Sullivan despite having filed the Complaint in October 2008, and is ther efor e we ll outsi de the 12 0- da y wi nd owfo r s e rv ic e re qu ir e d und e r F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il P roce du re 4( m) . T hu s, the se d ef en d an t s will be dismis sed fr om the case without prejudice. See F e d
. R. Ci v . P. 4 ( m)
. F ur the rm or e , the a c ts g ivi ng ri se to Pla int if f’ s c la ims oc c ur

re d in Ma

ry land , Pla int if

f re sid e s in Maryland, Plaintiff’s prope rty is located in Mar

yland, and De fenda

nts do business in Maryland — all of which in d i ca t e that venue is prope r in the District of Ma ryland. Howe ver, Plaintiff a lrea dy-4-

br ou g ht s imi lar c la ims ba se d o n th e se e ve nts in t he Di str ic t of

Mary land and , havin gha d th os e
c la ims re je c te d th e re , n owse e ks ano the r f or um. Justi c e do e s no t req uir e the Court

to a llo w the se claims to proce ed. See, e .g., In re Pic keral , 267 B.R. 1, 4 (B ankr. D.D.C. 2001) (de nying tr ansfe r wher e plaintiff intentionally broug ht an action in an improper venue in a

n attempt to stall forec losure on her pr operty

). Ther efor e, the r emainingdefe ndants also will be dismissed from this case. Additionally , with respec t to Defe ndant NovaStar , Plaintiff’s claims are barr ed by

re s ju dic ata . The four

elements of re

s ju dic ata thi s Co ur

t tr a dit ion a lly

a pp lie s a re : ( 1) an id e nti ty of pa rt ie s; ( 2) a jud g me nt f

ro m a c ourt of c omp e te nt j ur isd ic tio n; ( 3) a fi na l ju dg me nt o n th e me ri ts; and (4) an identity

of the c ause of

action. See, e .g. , Am. Forest Re s. Council v. Shea , 172 F. Supp. 2d 24 , 2 9 ( D. D. C. 2 00 1) ; see also U. S. I ndus

. , I nc . v . Bl ak e Cons t r . Co. , 7 6 5 F. 2 d 1 9 5 , 2 0 5 ( D
. C
. C ir
. 1 9 8 5 ). The fir st t h re e el em ents are easily met here . First, Plaintiff sued Nova Star in the District Court for the District of Maryland i n 2006, alleg ing common law and fede ral law claims. Se e Ke lly v. Novastar Mortgage, Inc ., Civ. No. AW-06-2616 (D. Md.) ( Cmpl. filed Oct. 4, 2006). Second, that court di smissed the complaint for fa ilure to state a c laim upon which re lief could be g rante d. See id. (Mem. Op. f

iled Dec . 29, 2009). Third, “[a] dismissal, pur suant to Rule 12(b)( 6), is a resolution
on the m erits and is ordinarily prejudicia l.” Okusami v. Psyc hiatric Inst. of W ashington, Inc. , 959 F.2d 1062, 1066 ( D.C. Cir. 1992).

As to the fo ur

th e le me nt, “ c ourt s in thi s c ir c uit do no t r e qu ir e lit e ra lly ide nti c a l c la ims for r es judicata

to apply ; instead, there is an identit y of t he causes of action when the case s are based on the ‘same nucleus of f

acts[.] ’” Cap ito l H

ill Grou p v . P ill sb ur yW int hrop Sh aw P itt

ma n, LLP , 574 F . Supp . 2d 1 43 , 1 49 (D .D .C. 20 08 ); See Page v. U nited States , 729 F.2d 818, 820 ( D.C. Cir. 1984) (citations omitted) (“[A final] judgme nt bars any further claim based on the same ‘ nucleus of f acts,’Th e D
. C
. C i r cuit has “ em braced t he R est at em ent ( Seco nd ) of Jud g m ents’ p ra gm at i c, t r ansacti on al 2 ap p roa ch to d eterm inin g w h at co n stit u tes a cau se o f actio n ” for r e s j udi c at a p u rp o s e s . U

. S. I nd us., I nc. v . Bl ak e Cons t r . Co. , 765 F
. 2d 195, 205 ( D. C. C i r . 1985)
. “ I n a ddr e s s i ng t he c a us e - of

- a c t i on que s t i on, t he Restat em ent speaks i n t er m s of a t r ansacti on or ser i es of t r ansacti on s and g i ves ‘ w ei gh t to su ch co n sid eration s as w h eth er t h e facts are related in ti m e, sp ace , o ri gi n , o r m o ti v ation , w h eth er t h ey f o rm a c onve ni e nt t r i a l un i t , a nd whe t he r t he i r t r e a t men t a s a un i t c onf or ms t o t he pa r t i e s ’ e xpec t a t i ons or bu si ness un derst and i ng o r u s a ge.’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng t he Re s t a t e men t ( Se c ond) of J udg men t s § 23( 2) (19 8 2 ))
. Th e R estatem en t a p p roa ch r eflects the tr en d r eq u ir ing a p laintiff to p resen t i n o n e su it all c la im s fo r relie f th a t h e m a yh a v e aris in g o u t o f th e sa m e tran s a c tio n o r o c c u rre n c e . I d. -5- for ‘ it is t he fa cts surroundingthe transa ction or occurre nce which operate to constitute the ca use of
a c tio n, no t th e le g a l th e or

y up on wh ic h a lit ig ant r e lie s. ’” ); Sieve rding v . ABA , 439 F. Supp. 2d 120, 123 (D.D.C. 2006) ( finding plaintiff’s cla ims barre d by re s j u d i cata wher e they

could have been broug ht in plaintiff’s ear lier ac tion and plaintiff had no r eason t o “f i l e m ultiple suit s based on the same set of

events.” ). The doc trine of re s ju dic ata embodies the princ iple “that a party who once has had a chance to liti g ate a claim bef ore a n appropr iate tribunal usually oug ht not to have another chanc e to do so.” SB C Co mm s. In c . v . FCC , 4 0 7 F. 3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 229 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quotingthe Re state me nt ( Se c on d) of

Judg me nts c h. 1 at 6 ( 19 82 ))
. Pla int if f’ s c la ims a g a ins t N ov a Star a ri se 2 fr om o ste ns ibl y

the same fa c tua l a lle g atio ns — that is , th e e ve nts surr ound ingDe fe nd ants ’ s a le and/or a cquisition of Plainti ff’ s mortga g e note — a s did he r claims in the District of Mar yland. Compare Complaint [Dkt. # 1] at 1-3 with Kelly v. Novastar Mortgage, Inc ., Civ. No. AW-06-2616 (D. Md.) ( Mem. Op. filed De c. 29, 2006). Thus, there is an identity o f ca u s es o f action her e, and Pla int if f’ s c la ims a g a ins t No va Star are ba rr e d by re s jud ic ata
. No va Sta r wi ll b e dis mis se d f

ro m th is
case with prejudice
. IV . C ON CL USI ON

Be cause venue is improper here and it is not in t he intere st of justice to transfe r this case, De fenda

nts First Horizon, Sax on, Americ an Title, and Curr an & O’Sullivan will be-6-

dismiss ed fr om this case without prejudice . Ba sed on re s ju dic ata , Def

endant Nova Star will be dismiss ed fr om this case with pre judice. A memor ializi ngOrde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

Date : July

27 , 2 00 9 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER United States District J udg e