MEMORANDUM DECISION: (1) GRANTING HSBC BANK USA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS ADVERSARY COMPLAINT [Docket Number 7]; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT, THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN D. CLUNK CO., LPA'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Docket Number 10]; -AND- (3) DISMISSING ADVERSARY COMPLAINT [Docket Number 1]

BETH A. BUCHANAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter is before this Court on the Motion to Dismiss Adversary Complaint [Docket Number 7] filed by Defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee, in trust for the registered holders of ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-FM2, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates ("HSBC") and the Motion to Dismiss [Docket Number 10] filed by Defendant The Law Offices of John D. Clunk, Co., LPA ("Clunk").

In their Motions to Dismiss, HSBC and Clunk argues that Plaintiff-Debtor, Carlean Dates ("Ms. Dates")'s claims raised in her adversary complaint [Docket Number 1] ("Complaint"), challenging the validity of HSBC's note and mortgage lien against her residential property and alleging fraud against Clunk and HSBC for enforcing the allegedly invalid lien through foreclosure, are substantively the same claims she raised in a prior adversary proceeding [Adversary Case Number 16-1052]. In that prior adversary proceeding, this Court determined that Ms. Dates's claims were precluded by binding determinations in a prepetition state court judgment entry that HSBC held a valid lien. Accordingly, Ms. Dates's adversary claims were dismissed as barred by res judicata. Because Ms. Dates's current claims repeat her challenges of the validity of HSBC's lien and the enforcement of it, HSBC and Clunk argue that they are also barred by res judicata.

This Court agrees. The claims in Ms. Dates's Complaint are substantively the same as the claims she raised in Adversary Case Number 16-1052. Her claims remain precluded by the state court determination that HSBC holds a valid lien against Ms. Dates's residential property. Accordingly, her Complaint is dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 21, 2018, Ms. Dates filed her current bankruptcy case.1 On February 19, 2019, Ms. Dates filed her Complaint against HSBC and Clunk captioned Complaint to Determine the Extent and Validity of Lien on Real Property, for Fraud, and Conditional Acceptance under Proof of Claim [Docket Number 1]. In the Complaint, Ms. Dates asks this Court to determine the extent and validity of HSBC's promissory note and mortgage secured by her residential property at 12062 Hazelhurst Drive in Cincinnati Ohio (the "Residential Property"). In Count I, she asserts that HSBC's note and mortgage are invalid for various reasons including that HSBC did not comply with the time limits of its pooling and servicing agreement when it placed her loan in trust and, further, that the note and mortgage were assigned after the original lender was no longer in existence [Id., ¶¶ 25-31]. In Count II, she asserts fraud on the part of HSBC by accepting the assignment of the mortgage from MERS and fraud on the part of Clunk for initiating a foreclosure action on the part of HSBC when HSBC allegedly had no right to foreclose [Id., ¶¶ 32-41]. Finally, she includes Count III captioned "Conditional Acceptance Under Proof of Claim," which is indecipherable in both its factual basis and legal theory [Id., ¶¶ 42-43(a)-(d)]. The sole relief requested by Ms. Dates is a determination that HSBC holds no valid lien against her Residential Property and that fraud was committed requiring the mortgage to be settled and discharged [Id., ¶ 44].

On March 21, 2019 and March 25, 2019, HSBC and Clunk,2 respectively, filed their Motions to Dismiss [Docket Numbers 7 and 10]. They assert that Ms. Dates raised the same claims against them, contesting the validity of HSBC's note and mortgage against the Residential Property and asserting fraud in enforcing the allegedly invalid lien, in a prior adversary proceeding [See Bankruptcy Case Number 16-12410 and Adversary Case Number 16-1052]. In Count I of her amended complaint filed in the prior adversary proceeding, she asserted that HSBC's note and mortgage were invalid for various reasons including that HSBC did not comply with the time limits of the pooling and servicing agreement when it placed her loan in trust and that the note and mortgage were assigned after the original lender was no longer in existence [Adversary Case Number 16-1052, Docket Number 7, ¶¶ 29-35]. In Count II and IV, she asserted fraud on the part of HSBC by accepting the assignment of the mortgage from MERS [Id., ¶¶ 36-40] and violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by Clunk for representing HSBC in the foreclosure action and misrepresenting the validity of HSBC's lien [Id., ¶¶ 45-53].

In the prior adversary proceeding, Ms. Dates's claims against HSBC were dismissed by this Court based on the res judicata effect of a prior state court judgment [Id., Docket Number 30]. Specifically, this Court examined the binding effect of a January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry ("January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry") entered in the Hamilton County, Ohio Common Pleas Court and incorporating a prior Magistrate's Decision [Id., pp. 3-4]. The Judgment Entry, examined by this Court in the prior adversary proceeding, is also attached to HSBC's Motion to Dismiss filed in this adversary proceeding [Adversary Case Number 19-1011, Docket Number 7, Ex. C]. The January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry includes a determination that HSBC held a valid note and mortgage against the Residential Property [Id.]. This Court's analysis led it to conclude that the January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry was a final judgment on the merits that precluded this Court, under the doctrine of res judicata, from redetermining the validity of HSBC's lien [Adversary Case Number 16-1052, Docket Number 30, pp. 8-11]. Accordingly, this Court dismissed Ms. Dates's claims against HSBC [Id., pp. 11-12]. In addition to dismissing Ms. Dates's claims against HSBC, this Court granted Clunk's motion for judgment on the pleadings for the same reasons [Id., Docket Number 73].

In their current Motions to Dismiss, HSBC and Clunk argue that the same January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry precludes Ms. Dates's repeated attempt, with her current Complaint, to challenge the validity of HSBC's lien and assert fraud on the part of HSBC and Clunk related to enforcing that lien through foreclosure.

II. JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334, and the standing General Order of Reference in this District.

III. STANDARD FOR DISMISSAL

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint. In determining a motion to dismiss, the court must "`construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.'" Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555, 559 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007)). However, in determining such a motion, a court "need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences." Id.

Because a defendant is entitled to fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, the plaintiff's factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Consequently, to survive the filing of a motion to dismiss, the complaint "`must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.'" Varljen v. Cleveland Gear Co., Inc., 250 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2001) (further citation omitted).

Generally, when reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court may not consider matters beyond the complaint. Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 576 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that if matters outside of the complaint are considered, the motion to dismiss is effectively converted to a motion for summary judgment). However, "`[i]n ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court may consider: (1) any documents attached to, incorporated by, or referred to in the pleadings; (2) documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are referred to in the complaint and are central to the plaintiff's allegations, even if not explicitly incorporated by reference; (3) public records; and (4) matters of which the court may take judicial notice.'" Embassy Realty Investments, LLC v. City of Cleveland, 877 F.Supp.2d 564, 570 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (further citation omitted). See also Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC, 728 F.3d 592, 596 (6th Cir. 2013) (stating that although matters outside the pleadings are not to be considered by a court in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, documents attached to the motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the complaint and are central to the plaintiff's claims) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In other words, "[a] defendant may introduce certain pertinent documents if the plaintiff chooses not to do so." Embassy Realty, 877 F. Supp. 2d at 570. "Otherwise, a plaintiff with a legally deficient claim could survive a motion to dismiss simply by failing to attach a dispositive document." Id. As such, this Court may consider a critical document attached to HSBC's Motion to Dismiss that is referred to in Ms. Dates's Complaint and is central to her claims without converting HSBC's Motion to Dismiss into one for summary judgment.

In this proceeding, the state court foreclosure action and foreclosure judgment are referred to in Ms. Dates's Complaint [Adversary Docket Number 1, ¶¶ 19, 37] and the foreclosure litigation is central to her claims. Accordingly, this Court may consider the January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry in the foreclosure proceedings that is attached to HSBC's Motion to Dismiss [See Docket Number 7, Ex. C].

In addition, this Court may take judicial notice of the pleadings and documents of record in the prior adversary proceeding between the parties, Adversary Case Number 16-1052. See Saylor v. United States, 315 F.3d 664, 667-68 (6th Cir. 2003) ("[W]e have held that the court may take judicial notice of its own record in the prior case on which [a] claim preclusion argument is premised."); St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1979) (stating that judicial notice is particularly applicable to the court's own records of prior litigation closely related to the case before it); In re Rooney, 436 B.R. 454, 455 n.1 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2010) (noting that, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the court may take judicial notice of the contents of its prior case dockets and records).

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS

In her Complaint, Ms. Dates challenges the validity of HSBC's note and mortgage lien against her Residential Property and alleges fraud on the part of HSBC and Clunk stemming from their enforcement of this allegedly invalid lien through foreclosure proceedings. This is not the first time Ms. Dates has challenged HSBC's lien nor is it the first time this Court has been asked to evaluate her claims in light of the January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry. Accordingly, this Court incorporates its analysis of res judicata and the January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry's preclusive effect from its prior decisions in Adversary Case Number 16-1052, namely its Memorandum Decision Granting the Motion to Dismiss Amended Adversary Complaint as to Defendant HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee [Adversary Case Number 16-1052, Docket Number 30] ("Memorandum Decision Granting HSBC's Motion to Dismiss") and its Memorandum Decision Granting Defendant The Law Offices of John D. Clunk, Co., LPA's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket Number 73].

In its Memorandum Decision Granting HSBC's Motion to Dismiss in the prior adversary proceeding, this Court reviewed the January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry and its determination that HSBC held a valid second lien on Ms. Dates's Residential Property subject only to the first lien of the Treasurer for taxes [Adversary Case Number 16-1052, Docket Number 30, p. 4]. This Court concluded that the January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry was a final adjudication on the merits and the State Court's determination as to the validity of HSBC's lien was entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata [Id., pp. 8-11]. This Court then concluded that Ms. Dates's claims raised against HSBC in the bankruptcy adversary proceeding "question the same basic facts addressed in the State Court Proceeding: the validity of the 2011 assignment [of the mortgage and note] to HSBC and its resulting lien rights against Ms. Dates's Property and the ability of HSBC to collect under the promissory note." [Id., p. 11]. Accordingly, res judicata precluded this Court from "re-determining the validity of HSBC's lien rights and its ability to enforce the note and mortgage against Ms. Dates's Property." As such, this Court dismissed her claims against HSBC [Id., pp. 11-12]. Likewise, this Court granted Clunk judgment on the pleadings in the prior adversary proceeding because Ms. Dates's claims against Clunk rested on the invalidity of HSBC's note and mortgage and, thus, were also precluded by the January 29, 2014 State Court Judgment Entry [Adversary Case Number 16-1052, Docket Number 73, p. 7].

Ms. Dates's claims in her current Complaint [Adversary Case Number 19-1011, Docket Number 1] are of the same substance as those in Adversary Case Number 16-1052. She repeats her challenge of the validity of HSBC's lien and asserts fraud on the part of HSBC and Clunk related to the assignment of the lien and enforcing the allegedly invalid lien through foreclosure. Although Ms. Dates did not directly respond to HSBC's and Clunk's motions to dismiss in a timely manner, she did file three affidavits requesting that this Court vacate three prior rulings that were more procedural in nature [Docket Numbers 25-27 (requesting this Court vacate its orders at Docket Numbers 19-21)]. In her affidavits, she argued that res judicata does not apply to the state court Judgment Entry because the judgment does not address the chain of title argument she is currently raising.3 However, as this Court noted in its prior decision, res judicata not only precludes claims that were litigated in the state court but also those claims that could have been litigated. [See Decision in Adversary Proceeding 16-1052, Docket Number 30, pp. 9-10.] Because the state court addressed the validity and extent of HSBC's lien, all claims related to the validity of the lien that could have been adjudicated in that state court proceeding, including Ms. Dates's chain of title argument, are precluded. Accordingly, Ms. Dates's Complaint, and all claims therein, are dismissed.

This Court wants to emphasize to Ms. Dates that the validity of HSBC's lien against her Residential Property was determined by the State Court and is not subject to review by this Court. Continued filing of adversary complaints to challenge HSBC's lien in this Court will be reviewed under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011's standard for frivolous filings and filings presented for an improper purpose including harassment and unnecessary delay. Filings found in violation of Rule 9011, after appropriate due process is given, may result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c).

V. CONCLUSION

This Court GRANTS HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Adversary Complaint [Docket Number 7] and GRANTS Defendant, The Law Offices of John D. Clunk, Co., LPA's Motion to Dismiss [Docket Number 10].

Accordingly, Ms. Dates's Complaint [Docket Number 1] is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.