Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2013, MetLife assigned Bauers mortgage to Green Tree. Bauer later defaulted on his
mortgage and, in February 2014, Green Tree filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint
against Bauer in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County.
Shortly thereafter, Bauer commenced this action in federal court, alleging that his
mortgage had been transferred to NYCB after AmTrust entered FDIC receivership, that
this receivership resulted in MERS being unable to assign his mortgage, and that the
subsequent transfers from MERS to MetLife and from MetLife to Green Tree were
invalid. Bauer sought a declaratory judgment that neither MetLife nor Green Tree owns
the mortgage and that he was not indebted to MetLife and Green Tree. He also requested
monetary damages, among other things. Green Tree moved to dismiss the action pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; this motion was later
joined by MERS. The District Court granted the motion and Bauer timely appealed.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We exercise
plenary review when a District Court dismisses a case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2 Because we
will dismiss all of Bauers claims for lack of standing, we have no occasion to address the
District Courts other grounds for granting the motion to dismiss.
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 206 (3d Cir. 2009); Gould Elecs. Inc. v.
United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000).
3
III.
The District Court, in its memorandum accompanying the order granting Green
Trees motion to dismiss, wrote that Bauer did not have standing to bring his lawsuit
because he is not a party to the agreements assigning the mortgage nor is he a third-party
beneficiary of the assignments. Bauer challenges this determination.
To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a plaintiff must
establish that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both concrete and
particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.3 Therefore, we
must first determine whether Bauer has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact.
Bauer has not alleged an invasion of a legally protected interest and thus lacks
the injury-in-fact required to show standing.4 He has an obligation to pay his loan on
schedule, and to surrender his house in the event of an uncured default. His interest is in
Doe ex rel. Doe v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 665 F.3d 524, 542 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).
4
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
4
not being required to pay the same claim twice.5 Because he makes no allegation of any
invasion of that interest, he has not suffered an injury.6
Therefore, because Bauer has suffered no injury to a legally protectable interest by
the assignment of the contract, we hold that Bauer does not have standing to raise his
claims and the District Court properly granted Green Trees motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1).7
IV.
For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the order of the District Court.