Payne-Joseph v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC et al

United 	States 	District Court
District 	of Massachusetts
Cheryl 	Payne-Joseph ,
Plaintiff,
V. 	Civil Action No .
25-11206 - NMG
Rocket Mortgage, 	LLC, 	et 	al.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
GORTON, 	J .
This 	case 	arises 	from 	t h e 	alleged 	misconduct 	of 	de fe ndan ts
Rocket 	Mor t gage , 	LLC , 	Quicken 	Loans , 	L LC , 	Quicken 	Loans , 	LP 	and
Selene 	Finance 	LP 	(collectively , 	" defendants " ) 	in 	executing 	a
statutory 	power 	of 	sale 	on 	a 	property 	located 	at 	165 	Chr i st ina
Street 	in 	Newton , 	Massachusetts 	(" the 	Property " ) . 	The 	Property
i s 	owne d 	by 	prose 	plaint iff , 	Cheryl 	Payne-Joseph 	(" Payne -
Joseph " 	or 	" p laintiff " ) , 	who 	alleges 	t hat , 	inter 	alia ,
defendants 	forged 	her 	signature 	on 	mortgage 	transfer 	documents
and 	improperly 	solicited 	third 	parties 	to 	purchase 	the 	Pro p erty
without 	her 	consent .
Payne - Joseph 	filed 	a 	motion 	f or 	temporary 	restraining 	order
and 	preliminary 	injunction 	in 	the 	Massachusetts 	Land 	Court
Department 	of 	the 	Trial 	Court . 	After 	defendants 	timely 	re moved
- 1 -
Case 1:25-cv-11206-NMG Document 36 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 6

the 	case 	to 	this 	Court , 	sh e 	filed 	a 	series 	of 	mot io ns 	seek ing
emergency 	relief 	and 	ex ped ite d 	review 	of 	her 	case . 	Defendan.s
thereaf ter 	moved 	to 	dismiss 	the 	action 	in 	its 	entirety .
I. 	Background
Payne - Joseph 	filed 	her 	original 	complaint 	in 	Massachuse tts
Land 	Court 	in 	April , 	2025 . 	That 	pleading , 	which 	included
several 	emergency 	motions , 	alleges 	that :
1 ) the 	deed 	or 	title 	to 	the 	proper ty 	was 	never 	pr operly
delivered 	to 	Payne - Joseph ;
2) her 	mortgage 	payments 	ar e 	be ing 	held 	in 	the 	form 	of
performance 	bonds , 	an 	arrangemen t 	to 	which 	plaintiff 	did
not 	consent ;
3) 	s he 	was 	denied 	her 	right 	to 	explore 	a lt ernative 	so lution s
to 	fo reclosure , 	as 	protected 	under 	the 	Home 	Affordab le
Modification 	Program , 	Americans 	with 	Di sab ilities 	Act 	and
the 	Fair 	Lend i ng 	Act ;
4) defendants 	d id 	not 	co mp ly 	with 	their 	obligations 	under
the 	Debt 	Sett le ment 	Agreement 	to 	pr ovi de 	proof 	of 	the
debt , 	verificati on 	of 	the 	claim 	and 	a 	sign ed 	copy 	of 	the
b i nding 	contract ;
5) 	Rocket 	Mortgage 	fraudulently 	transferred 	the 	mortgage 	to
Selene 	Fi nance , 	LP 	without 	Payne-Joseph ' s 	consent 	and
forged 	her 	signature 	on 	the 	related 	documents ;
- 2 -
Case 1:25-cv-11206-NMG Document 36 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 6

6) defendants 	petition 	for 	foreclosure 	under 	a 	statutory
power 	of 	sale 	document 	that 	was 	not 	s i gned 	by 	p l a i nt if f ;
and
7) defendants 	have 	failed 	to 	validate 	her 	debt 	properly .
Payne - Joseph 	provides 	sparse 	factual 	allegations 	to 	support 	her
claims .
In 	May , 	2025 , 	defendants 	filed 	a 	Notice 	of 	Removal 	to 	this
Court 	based 	on 	federal 	question 	jurisdiction 	over 	plaintiff ' s
claims 	pursuant 	to 	the 	Federal 	Debt 	Collection 	Procedures 	Act ,
15 	U. S . C . 	§1692 , 	and 	the 	Identity 	Theft 	and 	Assumption
Deterrence 	Act , 	18 	U. S . C . 	§1028 . 	Several 	days 	later , 	plaintiff
filed 	motions 	1) 	for 	a 	temporary 	restraining 	order 	and
preliminary 	injunction , 	2) 	for 	a 	protective 	order , 	3) 	to
" Preemptively 	Oppose 	Defense 	Tactics 	and 	to 	Enforce 	Emergency
Relief ," 	4) 	for 	an 	expedited 	trial 	and 	hearing 	and 	5) 	to 	waive
filing 	fees . 	Several 	weeks 	later , 	Defendan.s 	filed 	oppos i tions
to 	the 	plaintiff ' s 	motions 	as 	well 	as 	·ts 	own 	motion 	to 	d i smiss .
II. 	Discussion
Any 	civil 	action 	brought 	in 	state 	court , 	over 	which 	federa l
courts 	have 	original 	jurisdiction , 	may 	be 	removed 	to 	federal
District 	Court 	by 	defendants 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U. S . C . 	§§1441 	and
1446 . 	The 	District 	Court 	must 	consider 	the 	issue 	of 	subject-
matter 	jurisdiction 	regardless 	of 	whether 	the 	issue 	has 	been
raised , 	or 	is 	stipulated 	to , 	by 	the 	parties . 	Am . 	Policyholders
- 3-
Case 1:25-cv-11206-NMG Document 36 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 6

Ins . 	Co . 	v . 	Nyacol 	Prods ., 	Inc ., 	989 	F . 2d 	1256 , 	12513 - 59 	( 1st
Ci r . 	1993 ) . 	The 	Court 	may 	not 	exerc i se 	subj e ct - ma t ter
jurisdiction 	in 	the 	absence 	of 	constitutional 	standing . 	United
Seniors 	Ass ' n , 	Inc . 	v . 	Philip 	Morris 	USA , 	500 	F . 3d 	19 , 	23 	(1st
Cir . 	200 7 ) . 	If 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	the 	plaintiff 	in 	a 	removed
action 	lacks 	standing , 	it 	must 	remand 	the 	case 	to 	state 	court .
Plazzi 	v . 	FedEx 	Ground 	Package 	Sys ., 	Inc ., 	52 	F . 4th 	1 , 	7 	(1st
Cir . 	2022) ; 	28 	U. S . C . 	§1447 .
Constitutional 	standing 	under 	Artic l e 	II I 	o f 	the 	Un i ted
Stat e s 	Constitut i on 	restricts 	federal 	courts 	to 	reviewing 	on l y
cases 	and 	controversies . 	U. S . 	Const . 	art . 	III , 	§ 	2 , 	cl . 	1 .
Standing 	requires 	a 	cognizable 	injury 	that 	is 	concrete 	and
particularized . 	Lujan 	v . 	Defenders 	of 	Wildlife , 	504 	U. S . 	555 ,
560 	(1992) . 	Where 	injury 	and 	cause 	are 	not 	obvious , 	the
plaintiff 	must 	plead 	that 	injury 	with 	specificity . 	Adams 	v .
Watson , 	10 	F . 3d 	915 , 	922 	(1st 	Cir . 	1993) . 	The 	harm mus t 	be
actua l 	or 	i mminent 	rather 	than 	merely 	speculative .
Katz 	v . 	Pershing , 	LLC , 	672 	F . 3d 	64 , 	71 	(1st 	Cir . 	2012)
In 	the 	present 	case , 	the 	plaintiff ' s 	complaint 	does 	not
allege 	any 	specific 	or 	particularized 	harm . 	Payne - Jospeh
alleges 	that 	she 	has
suffered serious 	harm , 	including damage 	to 	her
credit , 	emotional 	distress 	and 	the
unauthorized 	use 	of 	her 	personal 	information ,
[that 	her 	property 	is] 	threatened 	by 	[the]
illegal 	foreclosure 	actions 	[and that exposure
-4-
Case 1:25-cv-11206-NMG Document 36 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 6

of 	the 	act i ons 	has 	led 	to] 	i d e nt it y 	th e 	t 	and
t he 	p ote n ti a l 	so li c it a t ion 	of 	t h e 	Pl a i n tiff ' s
p rop ert y b y th ird par t ies 	wit h o ut 	he r 	c o nsen t .
Without 	factual 	allegations 	to 	support 	the 	existence 	of 	such
injur i es , 	it 	cannot 	be 	shown 	how 	they 	were 	caused 	by 	defendant ' s
act ion s 	and 	ar e 	not 	pled 	wi th 	the 	required 	specificity .
Plaintiff ' s 	claims 	are 	insufficient 	to 	establish 	an 	injury 	t ha t
is 	concrete 	and 	particularized 	as 	is 	required 	by 	constitutiona l
s t a nd i ng .
Furth e rmor e , 	an y 	cogni z ab l e 	c l a i ms 	o f 	i n j ury 	r e late d 	to 	a
f or e c l osur e 	sa l e 	are 	not 	actual 	or 	imminent . 	Plainti f f 	has 	no t
a lle g e d 	that 	a 	f oreclosure 	sale 	has 	occurred 	or 	is 	impend i ng ,
and , 	i ndeed , 	defendants 	contend 	that 	no 	foreclosure 	sale 	has
be e n 	scheduled . 	Any 	perceived 	harm 	stemming 	from 	a 	theoretica l
sa l e 	does 	not 	meet 	the 	imminence 	requirement 	and 	cannot 	pro v ide
a 	basis 	for 	constitutiona l 	standing .
- 5-
Case 1:25-cv-11206-NMG Document 36 Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 6

ORDER
For 	the 	forgoing 	reasons 	the 	action 	shall 	be 	REMANDED 	to
state 	court 	for 	further 	pr oceedings .
So 	ordered.
Senior 	United 	States 	District 	Judge
Dated : 	November /] , 	2025
- 6-
Case 1:25-cv-11206-NMG Document 36 Filed 11/12/25 Page 6 of 6