13 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 263,477 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 276,716 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Pielage v. McConnell
516 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,101 times 4 Legal Analyses
Noting that "[t]reaties, like statutes, should be construed so that no words are treated as being meaningless, redundant, or mere surplusage."
American Bankers' Ins. Co. v. Wells
1999 CA 523 (Miss. 2001) Cited 124 times
Holding that the "[t]he duty of good faith and fair dealing arises from the existence of a contract between the parties."
Abels v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
678 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2009) Cited 49 times
Holding plaintiffs stated a claim where they alleged facts showing lender acted in bad faith in exercising its discretion to force-place insurance
Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
CASE NO. 11-21233-CIV-ALTONAGA/Simonton (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2011) Cited 44 times
Holding that claim could proceed where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant "retroactively" purchased backdated force-placed policies under Florida law
Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
CASE NO. 11-21233-CIV-ALTONAGA/Simonton (S.D. Fla. Sep. 19, 2011) Cited 19 times
In Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 4368980 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2011), the district court confirmed that in order to maintain an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law the plaintiff must confer a "direct benefit" upon the defendant, but held that direct contact was not required.
Vician v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
No. 2:05-CV-144 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 16, 2006) Cited 25 times
Concluding that plaintiffs had failed to state claim under 12 C.F.R. § 226.20(c) due to mortgage servicer force-placing insurance and inflating plaintiffs' loan balances to recoup costs thereof, but nevertheless holding that plaintiffs had stated a viable claim under 12 C.F.R. § 226.18
Hofstetter v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
No. C 10-01313 WHA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011) Cited 19 times
Holding that a class was ascertainable because "[a]ll the parameters for membership in this class are objective criteria, and defendants' business records should be sufficient to determine the class membership status of any given individual"
Wynkoop v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
CASE NO. 11-60392-CV-COHN (S.D. Fla. May. 26, 2011) Cited 3 times
Rejecting a similar argument and noting that "Plaintiff's RESPA claim arises from statute—it does not rely upon a duty imposed upon Defendant by the Mortgage"
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 162,084 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Ulbrich v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Noting that "[t]reaties, like statutes, should be construed so that no words are treated as being meaningless, redundant, or mere surplusage."

Holding that the "[t]he duty of good faith and fair dealing arises from the existence of a contract between the parties."

Holding plaintiffs stated a claim where they alleged facts showing lender acted in bad faith in exercising its discretion to force-place insurance

Holding that claim could proceed where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant "retroactively" purchased backdated force-placed policies under Florida law

In Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 4368980 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2011), the district court confirmed that in order to maintain an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law the plaintiff must confer a "direct benefit" upon the defendant, but held that direct contact was not required.

Concluding that plaintiffs had failed to state claim under 12 C.F.R. § 226.20(c) due to mortgage servicer force-placing insurance and inflating plaintiffs' loan balances to recoup costs thereof, but nevertheless holding that plaintiffs had stated a viable claim under 12 C.F.R. § 226.18

Holding that a class was ascertainable because "[a]ll the parameters for membership in this class are objective criteria, and defendants' business records should be sufficient to determine the class membership status of any given individual"

Rejecting a similar argument and noting that "Plaintiff's RESPA claim arises from statute—it does not rely upon a duty imposed upon Defendant by the Mortgage"

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."