All rights reserved. Mortgage lender HomeBanc files for Chapter Closed-door testimony by State official describes Giuliani's 'campaign of lies'. More than 2 million pounds of chicken products recalled, may contain metal. China and the US agree to roll back tariffs in phases, Chinese official says. Elderly man dies after falling 22 feet down a lava tube in his own yard. Pence adviser on Ukraine call testifies in impeachment probe.
Cold front moves into the Northeast with rain and snow. Ceiling collapses on theater audience, injuring 5. Facebook response to privacy probe is 'inadequate': California AG. Stillborn baby had high levels of meth, mother charged with murder.
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse: Case Page
Allegations against Biden 'not credible,' testified US official now touted by Trump. People of color make gains in mayoral races across the US. Trump moves to Florida and here's how presidential home security works: Analysis. Amy Klobuchar responds to 'difficult to work for' reputation amid WH run. Diplomat who called quid pro quo 'crazy' tells Congress: 'I still believe that'. Pence files on behalf of Trump for New Hampshire primary. In Iowa, Pete Buttigieg's youth is attracting older voters. Judge strikes down Trump administration's conscience rule for health care workers.
Biden attacks Warren's approach to health care as 'elitism'. Trump adviser warns China exporting tech authoritarianism. Time your credit card application this bonus-friendly season. Arrest warrant issued for suspect in college student's disappearance. Bank of England warns over global economic hit to UK. Hugh Marshall Worsham, Jr. Shavel and Hill Wallack, Princeton, N. This is a civil rights and fair housing action brought pursuant to 42 U.
- cell free number phone search secure.
- mn property information found in public records databases;
- Burbage & Weddell L.L.C – 888.547.5170.
- Burbage & Weddell L.L.C – 888.547.5170.
Jurisdiction is vested with the Court pursuant to 28 U. This case is before the Court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss for insufficiency of service of process, and for failure to state a claim , and on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, Trent T. The Security Deed entitled Homebanc to foreclose on the Note should Hickson sell or transfer any part of the Property without Homebanc's prior written consent. In , Hickson relocated to New Jersey, and leased the Property to various tenants between and In September of , Hickson transferred title to the Property to a New Jersey corporation "the Corporation" , of which he was either an "independent director," or "the owner.
Homebanc treated the transfer as a default under the Security Deed, and shortly thereafter began foreclosure proceedings on the Property. Hickson offered to deed the property to Homebanc in lieu of foreclosure, but Homebanc refused the offer. James W. Affidavit of James W.
Cloud, p. Homebanc also alleges that Hickson has failed to make any payments on the Note since February, , and that such failure is a default under the Security Deed, entitling Homebanc to foreclose on the Property.
On May 16, , Hickson filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, automatically staying Homebanc's foreclosure proceedings. The U. Bankruptcy Court dismissed Hickson's bankruptcy case on January 7, , thus lifting the stay. Hickson alleges that while his bankruptcy petition was pending, Homebanc reported to a credit agency that Hickson was delinquent on his loan payments. Complaint, p. Hickson claims that by refusing to accept his deed in lieu of foreclosure, Homebanc violated 42 U. Complaint at p.
Hickson alleges specifically that Homebanc "deliberately and maliciously inflicted distress by exhibiting unreasonable business conduct that has resulted in violations of rights secured to the plaintiff by 42 U. Hickson claims also that Homebanc violated 42 U. Hickson alleges that Homebanc's actions "caused interference with [his] business affairs of employment, and capabilities to conduct trade and commerce," and that its actions were "deliberate and malicious. Hickson claims further that Homebanc violated 11 U. Finally, Hickson claims that Homebanc tortiously invaded his privacy by making its report to the credit agency.
Homebanc has moved the Court to dismiss Hickson's complaint due to insufficient service of process and Hickson's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hickson has moved the Court to grant him Summary Judgment on all claims against Homebanc. At oral argument on Homebanc's Motion to Dismiss, Homebanc challenged the venue.
The New Jersey district court found that it had "no personal jurisdiction over Defendant and that venue in the District of New Jersey is improper," and transferred the case to this Court. Order of April 8, In support of its Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Homebanc asserts that it was served "by mail only, a method of service not authorized under Fed. Homebanc contends further that "[s]ince those procedures have not been satisfied, plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal.
Homebanc does not elaborate on its assertion, and does not inform the Court specifically how Hickson failed to satisfy Rule 4's requirements. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 b 5 recognizes motions to dismiss for "insufficiency of service of process. Courts in other circuits, however, have found that the objection "must be specific and must point out in what manner the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of the service provision utilized. Simplex Specialty Co. Panama-Williams, Inc. Best Western Country, F. In Panama-Williams, the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, but failed to specify in its motion "in what particulars the service of process [was] deficient.
Office of Tax and Revenue
Because the court was unable to determine from looking at the summons and the marshal's return of service that the defendant was not properly served, the court found that it could not sustain the motion to dismiss. The facts in the case before the Court are very similar to those in Panama-Williams. Homebanc, in its Motion to Dismiss, concedes that it was served by mail, but protests obtusely that certain unenumerated "procedures" were not "satisfied.
Homebanc gives the Court no hint as to which procedures it refers, nor does Homebanc suggest how Hickson failed to satisfy them. Furthermore, neither the summons nor the return of service were entered into the record, so the Court is unable to make an independent determination of whether Homebanc was properly served. The Court adopts the requirement enunciated in Panama-Williams, that Homebanc must specify in its brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss in what particulars service of process was deficient.
Based on this requirement, the Court finds that Homebanc failed to object properly to the sufficiency of Hickson's service of process.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 b 6 allows dismissal of a complaint which fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Rule 12 b. The court furthermore construes the pleadings broadly, accepting all facts pleaded therein as true and viewing all inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Cooper v. Thus, a motion to dismiss will be granted only if "it appears beyond doubt that the [nonmovant] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.
A pro se complaint is held to even less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Ault, F. See Secretary, HUD ex rel. Herron v.
Hickson v. Home Federal of Atlanta, 805 F. Supp. 1567 (N.D. Ga. 1992)
Blackwell, F. Hickson, in his Complaint, informs the Court that he is an African-American, and asserts that Homebanc's "decision to decline the plaintiff's offer [to give Homebanc his deed in exchange for Homebanc's agreement not to foreclose] was racially motivated. Nowhere, though, does he plead that he met whatever qualifications may exist for making such an exchange, or that Homebanc engages in such exchanges with any other parties, let alone parties with qualifications similar to his.
- ATMs & Locations.
- Online Banking!
- phone number to no call list?
- death official record row site web.
Because Hickson has failed to state a claim under 42 U. As discussed above, Hickson has not alleged that he possessed the requisite qualifications for any transactions he wished to make, nor has he alleged that Homebanc treated similarly qualified people differently. Hickson has also failed to allege that he attempted to engage in similar transactions with other parties and that Homebanc interfered with his attempts. Apart from his seemingly gratuitous declaration that he was the victim of "racial discrimination," Hickson has failed to plead any facts that might suggest that Homebanc violated the Fair Housing Act.
Because Hickson did not plead the basic elements of a substantive Fair Housing Act violation, he has failed to state a claim under section Hickson claims that Homebanc "deliberately and maliciously" "caused interference with Hickson's business affairs of employment, and capabilities to conduct trade and commerce by making his financial condition known to the public through credit reports," and by "enforcing the mortgage note.
Posts from Homebridge
The Eleventh Circuit has found that the elements of a section claim  are similar to those set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. Scarlett v. Seabord C. Unit B To state a claim against Homebanc under section , Hickson must allege in his pleadings that: 1 he met whatever qualifications may exist for having Homebanc forbear on enforcing the mortgage note or making a report to credit agencies; 2 despite his qualifications, Homebanc refused to so forbear; and 3 Homebanc has forbore for other people who share qualifications similar to Hickson's.
See Greason v. Southeastern R.