Days v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 3:18-CV-00440-MOC-DSC. (2020)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20200131b12
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 30, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2020
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and filed by the Bayview Defendants (Doc. No. 47) and the SN Defendants (Doc. No. 50). In support, Defendants extensively rely on supporting documents outside the complaint. ( See, e.g., Doc. No. 48 at 11 (arguing "Plaintiffs did not continue to make loan payments" and
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and filed by the Bayview Defendants (Doc. No. 47) and the SN Defendants (Doc. No. 50). In support, Defendants extensively rely on supporting documents outside the complaint. ( See, e.g., Doc. No. 48 at 11 (arguing "Plaintiffs did not continue to make loan payments" and "..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, JR., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and filed by the Bayview Defendants (Doc. No. 47) and the SN Defendants (Doc. No. 50). In support, Defendants extensively rely on supporting documents outside the complaint. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 48 at 11 (arguing "Plaintiffs did not continue to make loan payments" and "refused to execute any of the written loan modifications"); Doc. No. 51 at 3 (asserting "[t]he SN Defendants timely responded to [Plaintiffs'] complaints and offered the[m] a Loan modification, which the Plaintiffs refused")). But on Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motions, the Court generally considers only the allegations on "the face of the complaint." Waugh Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 27, 728 F.3d 354, 360 (4th Cir. 2013). In accordance with its obligation to liberally construe pro se complaints, the Court now enters the following Order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, filed by the Bayview Defendants (Doc. No. 47) and the SN Defendants (Doc. No. 50), are denied pending further development of the record, and the Court will issue a ruling after discovery and the parties' filing of summary judgment motions.
Source: Leagle
