[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13291

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JEAN PARAISON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-03379-JPB

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-13291 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13291

Before ROSENBAUM, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jean Paraison appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, for failure to state a claim. 

Paraison was the successful bidder in an auction for a piece of real 

property sold by Nationstar. After the parties signed a purchase 

agreement, Nationstar’s real estate agent allegedly called Paraison 

and attempted to dissuade him from moving forward with the 

transaction. The closing company selected by Nationstar also failed 

to timely provide Paraison with a title report when he requested 

one. As a result, Paraison asserts that he and his lender were unable 

to perform the requisite due diligence in time for the closing date.

Paraison sued for breach of contract and discrimination 

based on race and nationality. Nationstar moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which the district 

court granted. Because Nationstar did not breach any duties under 

the contract, and because Paraison’s allegations of discrimination

are conclusory and speculative, we affirm.

I. 

 According to Paraison’s complaint, he was the successful 

bidder in an auction for a piece of Georgia real estate sold by Nationstar. After the auction, Paraison paid earnest money and the 

parties entered into a purchase agreement setting forth the terms 

of the transaction. This agreement included an exhibit that directed 

USCA11 Case: 21-13291 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 2 of 7
21-13291 Opinion of the Court 3

the parties to contact the closing company (a law firm selected by 

Nationstar) for a preliminary title report. The agreement also contained a provision stating that Paraison would “bear the . . . sole 

responsibility of obtaining” a property survey, should one be required for closing. 

Paraison alleges that, after he signed the agreement, Nationstar’s real estate agent called him and said that he should “back out 

of the deal,” that the property was in “bad condition,” and that he 

would “lose his money” because of the transaction. Paraison later 

asked the closing company for a preliminary title report, but it 

failed to provide him with one. Because of the resulting delay, 

Paraison was unable to obtain the survey that was necessary to remove a title exception before the closing date. When his lender 

eventually obtained the title report, it asked Nationstar’s closing 

agent to remove the title exception, but the agent refused. 

Paraison sued Nationstar in federal district court. He argued 

that Nationstar had breached the purchase agreement by failing to 

deliver good and marketable title to the property and by failing to 

provide the title report that his lender needed for closing. He also 

claimed that Nationstar violated the federal Fair Housing Act and 

the Georgia Fair Housing Act by discriminating against him as an 

African American male with a Haitian accent. He requested that 

Nationstar be required to convey title to the property in exchange 

for the agreed-upon purchase price. He also requested civil penalties and expenses of litigation.

USCA11 Case: 21-13291 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13291

Nationstar then moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court 

granted the motion. Regarding the breach of contract claim, it reasoned that Nationstar was not required under the purchase agreement to provide a title report or remove the title exception. It also

concluded that Nationstar could terminate the contract because it 

was unable or elected not to address the title exception. As for the 

discrimination claims, the court found Paraison’s allegations too 

speculative and conclusory to state a claim for relief. It therefore 

dismissed the action, and Paraison timely appealed.

II. 

“We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Boyle v. City of Pell 

City, 866 F.3d 1280, 1286 (11th Cir. 2017). In doing so, we “accept[]

the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[] them 

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Speaker v. U.S. Dep’t 

of Health & Hum. Servs. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 

623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir. 2010). 

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007). In other words, it must “raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level,” id. at 555, and must contain more than “naked 

assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13291 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 4 of 7
21-13291 Opinion of the Court 5

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up) (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 557)). 

III. 

Paraison argues that the district court erred by dismissing his 

claims for breach of contract and discrimination. We address each 

of those claims and conclude that dismissal was proper.

A.

First, Paraison argues that the closing company, as Nationstar’s agent, breached the purchase agreement by failing to timely 

provide him with a title report when he asked for it. “The elements 

for a breach of contract claim in Georgia are the breach . . . and the 

resultant damages to the party having the right to complain about 

the contract being broken.” TechBios, Inc. v. Champagne, 688 

S.E.2d 378, 381 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). When, as here, the language of 

a contract is “clear and unambiguous,” Georgia courts “simply enforce[] the contract according to its clear terms” and “no construction is required.” Envision Printing, LLC v. Evans, 786 S.E.2d 250, 

252 (2016) (quoting Steel, Inc. v. Delta Bldg. Sys., Inc., 676 S.E.2d 

451, 453 (2009)).

Paraison points to two parts of the purchase agreement in 

support of his breach of contract claim: Exhibit A to the agreement 

and Section 8(F). The problem for Paraison is that neither section 

of the agreement required Nationstar to provide him with a title 

report.

USCA11 Case: 21-13291 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13291

Exhibit A to the purchase agreement states, “Please refer to 

preliminarily [sic] Title Report. Contact the Closing Company for 

this report.” To Paraison’s point, this statement does seem to presuppose that the closing company, which Nationstar chose, would 

have the title report available. But even assuming the closing company was Nationstar’s agent, this provision does not oblige anyone 

to prepare the report.

Paraison also argues that the delay in providing a title report 

prevented him from obtaining the property survey that was necessary to remove the title exception in time for closing. He asserts 

that the need for a survey was “contemplated” by Section 8(F) of 

the purchase agreement. But that section also does not impose any 

duty on Nationstar. As relevant, it states only that the “Buyer shall 

bear the . . . sole responsibility of obtaining a survey acceptable to 

the Title company and any lender.” Paraison—the buyer—was responsible for ensuring that he obtained a survey. 

B.

Second, Paraison argues that Nationstar violated the federal 

Fair Housing Act and the Georgia Fair Housing Act by discriminating against him based on his race and nationality. See 42 U.S.C. §

3604(b); Ga. Code § 8-3-202(a). He alleges that Nationstar’s real estate agent called him and said that he should “back out of the deal,” 

that the property was in “bad condition,” and that he would “lose 

his money” because of the transaction. As a result of the call, he 

asserts that he was effectively prevented from closing on the 

USCA11 Case: 21-13291 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 6 of 7
21-13291 Opinion of the Court 7

property. And he argues that the real estate agent’s remarks could 

only have been motivated by his status as an African American with 

a Haitian accent.

As the district court correctly observed, these allegations are 

nothing more than “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Paraison has not alleged 

any facts establishing a connection between his race or nationality 

and the real estate agent’s statements. He has therefore fallen short 

of the pleading standard in Twombly by failing to “raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level.” 550 U.S. at 555.

IV. 

The district court correctly granted Nationstar’s motion to 

dismiss as to the claims raised on appeal. We therefore AFFIRM.

USCA11 Case: 21-13291 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 7 of 7