DUNSTON
v.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff failed to state claims for fraudulent concealment, securitization and securities violations, and disgorgement/recoupment.
Plaintiff sued Defendant for fraudulent concealment, securitization and securities violations, and disgorgement/recoupment. The Magistrate Judge recom…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Disgorgement cases and more on FLexlaw
Judge correctly concluded Dunston failed to state any claims for relief. See ECF No. 15.
The undersigned has made a de novo determination of Dunston's objections and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Carrington's Motion to Dismiss should be granted because Dunston has not pleaded facts sufficient to support the claims and prayed for relief in her Complaint. First, Dunston's fraudulent concealment claim fails because (1) the allegedly concealed terms of her loan are stated clearly in the loan agreement, see ECF No. 8-1 at 9; ECF No. 11 at 39, and (2) Carrington is not the original lender, and thus, could not have made the alleged misrepresentations to Dunston about the terms of her loan. [fn 1] Second, Dunston's claims for securitization and securities violations fail because she did not plausibly allege facts to establish standing. [fn 2] Third, and for similar reasons, Dunston does not allege a cognizable claim for disgorgement and recoupment. [fn 3]
Case No. 3:24cv185
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 13, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. The Carrington's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED, and the claims in Dunston's Complaint, ECF No. 1, are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of October 2024.
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case No. 3:24cv185
[fn 1]: See ECF No. 13 at 5-8; see also Lamb v. Graco Children's Prod. Inc., No. 4:11CV477- RH/WCS, 2012 WL 12871963, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2012) (“To state a fraudulent-concealment claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the defendant concealed or failed to disclose a material fact; (2) the defendant knew or should have known the material fact should be disclosed; (3) the defendant knew its concealment of or failure to disclose the material fact would induce the plaintiff to act; (4) the defendant had a duty to disclose the material fact; (5) the plaintiff detrimentally relied on the misinformation; and (6) the plaintiff's reliance was reasonable.”) (emphasis added) (citing R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060, 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Gulf Winds Fed. Credit Union v. Firestone Bldg. Prod. Co., No. 3:07CV468-RS, 2008 WL 360623, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2008) (“A fraudulent concealment claim is subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)'s requirement that the circumstances constituting fraud shall be stated with particularity.") (internal citations omitted).
[fn 2]: See ECF No. 13 at 9-12.
[fn 3]: See id. at 13-15.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Matilde C. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)