NOLAN v. HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA) et al, No. 1:2016cv01265 - Document 14 (D.D.C. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: Re Motions to Dismiss filed by FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE) 8 and HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION 10 . Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/30/16. (DJS)

Download PDF
NOLAN v. HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA) et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VICKI R. NOLAN, Plaintiff, v. HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA), et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 16-cv-1265 (TSC) MEMORANDUM OPINION Pro se Plaintiff Vicki R. Nolan filed this action against HSBC Mortgage Corporation and the Federal National Mortgage Association asserting claims for fraud in the concealment, “unconscionable contract,” breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, slander of title, intentional infliction of and emotional distress. (ECF No. 1-1 at ECF pp. 2-18). Although her complaint is difficult to comprehend, it appears that she alleges, inter alia, that certain mortgage, title, and deed related documents were not properly executed, recorded and/or transferred. On June 24, 2016, the court issued an order advising Plaintiff that, even though she is proceeding without counsel, she has an obligation to follow the court’s Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any court orders, and that any failure to comply with the rules or court orders could result in dismissal of her case. (ECF No. 7). On June 29, 2016, both Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF Nos. 8, 10). On July 1, 2016, this court issued an order advising Plaintiff that she had until July 25, Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com 2016 to respond to the motions, and her failure to address any arguments in the motions or her failure to respond in a timely manner could result in dismissal of her complaint. (ECF No. 12) (citing Local Civil Rule 7(b) (providing that the court may treated as conceded any motions for which a response is not filed)). On the date her response was due, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time in which to respond because she was attempting to secure counsel. (ECF No. 13). The court granted her motion, ordering that she file her response by September 8, 2016. (Minute Order dated July 27, 2016). Three weeks after the extended deadline, Plaintiff has not responded and has not sought an extension of time in which to respond. Accordingly, the court will treat the motions as conceded and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order to: Date: September 30, 2016 VICKI R. NOLAN 6906 Mountain Lake Place Capitol Heights, MD 20743 Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge Page 2 of 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.