A homeowner's lawsuit was dismissed for naming a nonexistent company as defendant.

Record source: CourtListener

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:23-CV-00153-MEO-DCK PATRICIA HOLLIS, Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM & ORDER LAKEVIEW LOAN CARE LLC DBA DAVE WORRALL, Defendants. THIS MATTER is before the Court on LoanCare, LLC (“LoanCare”) and Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC’s (“Lakeview”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 14), and the relevant briefs and filings. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Patricia Hollis initiated this action alleging that Defendants engaged in improper mortgage-servicing and debt-collection conduct in connection with a home loan on property located at 6503 Nathan Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina. The Complaint names as a defendant “Lakeview Loan Care LLC DBA Dave Worall” — an entity that does not exist under that name. The record reflects two distinct corporate defendants (Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC and LoanCare, LLC) and one individual (Dave Worrall, alleged to be an officer of LoanCare), none of which is properly captured by the name pled. By Order dated August 22, 2025 (Doc. No. 12), the Court previously granted Defendants’ motion to vacate an entry of default and directed Plaintiff to correct the defects in naming and service that had rendered her earlier attempt at process ineffective. On October 2, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint (Doc. No. 14) on three grounds: (a) insufficient process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4); (b) insufficient service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5); and (c) failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss on October 17, 2025 (Doc. 17), together with supporting documents on December 8, 2025 (Doc. No. 18) and December 17, 2025 (Doc. No. 19). Plaintiff’s supporting exhibits include monthly mortgage statements and escrow disclosures from Lakeview/LoanCare, a field- inspection door notice, and a North Carolina Superior Court order dated October 28, 2025, in the related foreclosure proceeding (BCP No. F22-52092), in which the state court found that Lakeview had “not proven by the preponderance of the evidence that it is a holder of a valid debt owed by the Borrower” and dismissed that foreclosure action without prejudice. Defendants filed a Reply in support of their motion on January 23, 2026 (Doc. 20), asserting that Plaintiff’s Objection and supporting documents did not cure any of the defects identified in the motion, the Court’s prior Order, or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4), (b)(5), or (b)(6). Plaintiff thereafter filed a Notice Requesting Status of Pending Matters (Doc. No. 21, filed June 26, 2026) and further Supporting Documents (Doc. No. 22, filed June 30, 2026), attaching additional billing correspondence and a Notice of Withdrawal/Termination of the related foreclosure action filed May 5, 2026, confirming that the state foreclosure proceeding has since been withdrawn. II. LEGAL STANDARD Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, her filings are held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and are liberally construed. , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). That liberal construction, however, does not relieve a pro se plaintiff of the obligation to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing process, service, and pleading, nor does it require the Court to construct a legal claim that the plaintiff has not raised. , 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Rule 12(b)(4) permits dismissal for defects in the form of the summons or complaint itself. Rule 12(b)(5) permits dismissal where service of process was not accomplished in the manner Rule 4 requires—for a corporation, service must be made on an officer, managing or general agent, or other agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service, or in a manner authorized by the law of the state where service is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1); 4(e)(1). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). However, “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” , 550 U.S. 544, 556 n.3 (2007). A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” tests whether the complaint is legally and factually sufficient. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); , 550 U.S. at 570; , 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), , 566 U.S. 30 (2012). A court need not accept a complaint’s “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” , 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court, however, accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor. , 22 F.4th 412, 416 (4th Cir. 2022); , 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011). In so doing, the Court “must view the facts presented in the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” , 932 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir. 2019). Construing the facts in this manner, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” , 5 F.4th 511, 520 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting , 556 U.S. at 678). Thus, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) determines only whether a claim is stated; “it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” , 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). III. DISCUSSION A. Insufficient Process and Service of Process—Rules 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5) The Complaint names “Lakeview Loan Care LLC DBA Dave Worall” as the sole defendant — a name that corresponds to no existing legal entity. “DBA” (“doing business as”) designations apply to a natural person or entity operating under a trade name; they do not operate to merge two separate corporate defendants, or to substitute for naming an individual defendant in his own right. The result is a Complaint that does not put any actual defendant on fair notice of the claims against it — precisely the harm Rule 12(b)(4) is designed to prevent. This defect is compounded by the ser

Official opinion source