A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Cherahn Mitchell against Newrez LLC, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Veterans Loan Guarantee, and a Texas county clerk. The case centered around an attempted foreclosure on a property in Waskom, Texas. The court sided with Newrez, who argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, service was improper, and Mitchell failed to state a valid claim.
The Heart of the Matter: The Property in Texas
The core of the dispute revolves around a property Mitchell acquired in December 2021 with a loan backed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In early 2025, Mitchell received notice that she was behind on mortgage payments, and the property was slated for a foreclosure sale in May 2025. However, the sale was later rescinded.
Mitchell’s primary concern, as presented in her filings, seemed to be the accuracy of the records following the rescinded sale. She pointed to a September 2025 record from the Harrison County, Texas tax office that listed Newrez as the property owner, and her subsequent attempts to correct the record. Mitchell claimed she was injured by the failure of these and other records to reflect her ownership.
Her complaint alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act and a common law wrongful foreclosure claim. She sought to quiet title to the property, requested $672,000 in damages, and sought to prevent any future eviction or foreclosure proceedings.
Newrez’s Defense: Lack of Jurisdiction and Insufficient Claims
Newrez moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting a lack of personal jurisdiction (the court’s authority over the defendant), improper service, and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The other defendants had not yet participated in the case.
The Court’s Reasoning: Why the Case Was Dismissed
The court’s decision to dismiss the case rested on several key points. Firstly, the court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over Newrez. To establish personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must provide evidence that connects the defendant to the forum (in this case, the District of Columbia). Mitchell failed to do so. The court noted that Newrez is registered in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, and the property in question is located in Texas. The court found no basis for jurisdiction in the District of Columbia.
Secondly, the court found that Mitchell’s allegations were not detailed enough to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them. The court pointed out that while Mitchell referenced the Truth in Lending Act, she didn’t specify what actions she believed violated the act. Similarly, the court noted a lack of specifics regarding the alleged wrongful foreclosure, beyond the assertion that Newrez “failed to stop foreclosure as promised in writing.” The court found the lack of clarity was further complicated by the fact that the planned foreclosure was later rescinded.
The court also noted that Mitchell, who was representing herself (pro se), included “Mitchell 4 Acres LLC” in the caption of the complaint. However, the court pointed out that a corporation cannot be represented in federal courts by someone who is not a licensed attorney. Therefore, the court considered the complaint to be brought by Mitchell alone.
The court, while acknowledging it must review pro se complaints with extra care, noted that even pro se litigants must adhere to the rules.
In the end, the court concluded that the complaint failed to meet the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a “short and plain statement” of the claim.
Potential Venue Issues
The court also suggested that the lawsuit might have been filed in the wrong venue. Since the case primarily concerned a property and a potential foreclosure sale in Texas, the court questioned whether the District of Columbia was the appropriate location for the case. The court noted that the only apparent connection to D.C. was the involvement of the Department of Veterans Affairs, but that this is generally not enough to establish proper venue.