Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Chase Bank

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

January 9, 2018

CAROLYN DAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
CHASE BANK, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUTFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Chase Bank's (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss [6] (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff Carolyn Davis (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed her Complaint containing one and half pages of conclusory, vague factual and legal allegations. ([1] at 1-2). In it, Plaintiff claims that, in 1997, Defendant provided Plaintiff with a mortgage loan for $237, 000 for her new house. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that, from 1997 to present, Plaintiff paid $416, 497.20 to Defendant for the mortgage loan. (Id.). Plaintiff states that “Chase Bank is still illegally billing [her], ” and maintains that she owes $354, 464.82 on the loan (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that “Chase Bank is still [p]resently extorting $2, 347.00 each month from the [f]raud [m]odification.” (Id.). It appears Plaintiff is referring to a loan modification that was agreed to as part of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding entered into by Plaintiff in June 2008. (Id.). Plaintiff asserts violations of “Chapter 13 Laws and Discharge Law” and “[r]epeated [v]iolations of [m]ortgage [l]oan [f]raud and [p]redatory [l]ending.” (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff seeks (1) the cancellation of her fraud modification; (2) a mortgage discharge document provided by Defendant; and (3) $2 million in damages. (Id.).

         On December 8, 2017, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed for insufficient service of process. Plaintiff did not file a response and Defendant's motion is thus deemed unopposed. See LR 7.1(B), NDGa.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         “A plaintiff is responsible for serving the defendant with both a summons and the complaint within the time permitted under Rule 4(m).” Anderson v. Osh Kosh B'Gosh, 255 F. App'x 345, 347 (11th Cir. 2006).

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. (4)(m); see Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm'rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007). The manner in which a corporation must be served is governed by Rule 4(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It provides:

(h) Serving a Corporation, Partnership, or Association. Unless federal law provides otherwise or the defendant's waiver has been filed, a domestic or foreign corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated association that is subject to suit under a common name, must be served:
(1) in a judicial district of the United States:
(A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or
(B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and-if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.