SCOTT v. MR COOPER

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
VON SCOTT et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:24-cv-00380-LEW
)
MR. COOPER a/k/a 	)
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, 	)
)
Defendant 	)
RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL
Von Scott, Stephen E. Monaghan Jr., and Faimafili Monaghan, proceeding pro
se, bring federal security law and state Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) claims
against Mr. Cooper a/k/a Nationstar Mortgage relating to a loan secured by a
mortgage on real property located at 31 Jefferson Street in South Portland. 	See
Complaint (ECF No. 1); ECF No. 1-2 at 2. 	In their complaint, Scott and the
Monaghans assert that Mr. Cooper unlawfully misrepresented the “transaction” “as
a traditional mortgage loan” when it was in fact “an investment securitized into
Mortgage-Backed Securities.” Complaint at 3. They seek declarative and injunctive
relief and ask the Court to order Mr. Cooper to “[d]isgorge” the profits of its wrongful
actions, which they estimate to be “$1,000,000 per year since March 1, 2006.” 	Id.
at 4.
For several reasons, I recommend that the Court exercise its inherent power
to dismiss Scott and the Monaghans’ complaint notwithstanding their payment of the
filing fee. See Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64
Case 2:24-cv-00380-LEW Document 7 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(2d Cir. 2000) (holding that district courts have the inherent authority to dismiss
frivolous actions even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee); Mallard v. U.S. Dist.
Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“[28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)] . . . authorizes courts to dismiss
a ‘frivolous or malicious’ action, but there is little doubt that they would have power
to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision.”).
First, even with a liberal reading, the complaint lacks sufficient “detail of who,
what, when, where, and how” to provide fair notice of what the claims are and the
grounds 	upon 	which 	they 	rest. 	Byrne 	v. 	Maryland, 	No. 	1:20-cv-00036-GZS,
2020 WL 1317731, at *5 (D. Me. Mar. 20, 2020) (rec. dec.), aff’d, 2020 WL 2202441
(D. Me. May 6, 2020). In such circumstances, the complaint fails to state a plausible
claim and is subject to dismissal. 	See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007) (holding that a complaint is subject to dismissal when it does not plead “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”); Akande v. John Doe 1,
No. 12-10742-RWZ, 2012 WL 1658981, at *2 (D. Mass. May 10, 2012) (“A court may
. . . dismiss a complaint on its own motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.”).
Second, Stephen Monaghan has been enjoined from filing anything in “any
matter involving real estate or mortgages without prior permission from this Court.”
U.S. Bank 	N.A. 	v. 	Janelle, 	No. 	2:20-cv-00337-JAW, 	ECF 	No. 	128
(D. Me. Dec. 23, 2021). 	Because he failed to comply with the Court’s order to seek
permission before filing the complaint in this matter, this case is subject to dismissal.
See 	Fed. R. 	Civ. P. 41(b); 	Oliver 	v. 	Ariz. 	State 	Univ., 	No. 	1:21-cv-00228-LEW,
Case 2:24-cv-00380-LEW Document 7 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
2021 WL 4165367, at *1 (D. Me. Sept. 12, 2021) (rec. dec.) (“[D]istrict courts may . . .
sua sponte dismiss a complaint under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court
order.” (cleaned up)), aff’d, 2021 WL 4975732 (D. Me. Oct. 26, 2021).
Third, there is a vague reference to an “[i]nvalid foreclosure action” in one of
the attachments to the complaint, see ECF No. 1-2 at 45, which raises the possibility
that Scott and the Monaghans are impermissibly attempting to interfere with an
ongoing state court foreclosure action or overturn a final state court foreclosure
judgment, see Marrett v. Aroostook Cty. Fed. Sav. & Loan, No. 1:24-cv-00300-JAW,
2024 WL 4344713, at *4-5 (D. Me. Sept. 30, 2024) (rec. dec.) (explaining why a federal
court cannot interfere with state court foreclosure proceedings or invalidate a final
state court foreclosure judgment), aff’d, 2024 WL 4850209 (D. Me. Nov. 21, 2024).
Finally, Scott and the Monaghans cannot proceed because they rely on
meritless 	sovereign 	citizen 	legal 	theories. 	See 	U.S. 	Bank 	N.A. 	v. 	Janelle,
No. 2:20-cv-00337-JAW, 2021 WL 4847901, at *7-8 (D. Me. Oct. 18, 2021) (describing
sovereign citizen pseudolitigation and noting that it usually involves “pro se litigants
submitting court filings that are nothing more than a collection of legal-sounding but
false 	rules 	that 	purport 	to 	be 	law” 	(cleaned 	up)); 	Libertad 	v. 	Massachusetts,
No. 1:21-cv-03888-SDG, 2022 WL 1136727, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2022) (“Dismissal
of this action is appropriate and warranted based on its legal insufficiency and the
frivolity inherent in all sovereign citizen legal theories—such sovereign citizen
claptrap has been rejected over and over.” (cleaned up)); see also Robinson v.
Moynihan, 	No. 	3:21cv122, 	2021 	WL 	2346107, 	at 	*4 	(E.D. 	Va. 	June 	8, 	2021)
Case 2:24-cv-00380-LEW Document 7 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
(“[S]ecuritization does not relieve a borrower’s obligation to pay his or her mortgage,
nor does it prevent a lender from foreclosing on a property.”).
For all these reasons, I recommend that the Court DISMISS the complaint.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a Magistrate
Judge’s 	report 	or proposed 	findings 	or 	recommended 	decisions 	entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the District
Court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 	A responsive memorandum
shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Court and to appeal the District Court’s
order.
Dated: November 25, 2024
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:24-cv-00380-LEW Document 7 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>