MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On March 6, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Robert Garrasi (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in Troy City Court alleging Defendant Selene Finance, LP (“Defendant”) violated the Real Estate Settlements & Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §2605(k)(1)(D), by failing to respond to requests for information about a mortgage note and mortgage executed by David and Melinda Zebrowski “related to their former residence located at 7 Stablegate Drive, Clifton Park, New York 12065.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2-7. On March 27, 2019, Defendant removed the action to the Northern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) and “properly effected removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1-3. Shortly thereafter, on April 26, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is currently before the Court. See Dkt. No. 14. II. BACKGROUND On June 29, 2016, David and Melinda Zebrowski assigned their “rights and interests of certain mortgage related promissory notes” “related to 7 Stablegate Drive, Clifton Park, New York 12065″ to Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 12-13. Shortly thereafter, on July 11, 2016, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant requesting “the identity of the current owner” of the Zebrowski mortgage loan and mortgage, “the date that the owner…acquired the mortgage loan and mortgage,” and the “contact information for the owner.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 9. Plaintiff identified his correspondence as a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”), and included two letters designated as QWRs from David and Melinda Zebrowski to Defendant, also dated July 11, 2016, and the assignment document. See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 9-13. It is unclear whether Plaintiff or the Zebrowskis received a response from Defendant. On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff emailed Defendant’s customer service requesting a “copy of Zebrowski Mortgage Note” and indicated he was authorized to receive this information per an attachment labeled “Zebrowski Assignment of Mortgage Rights.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 15. On December 21, 2018, an agent from Defendant’s customer service department replied to Plaintiff’s email indicating that Defendant was “unable to provide information regarding the mortgagor’s account without obtaining written authorization from the mortgagor.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 17. On January 25, 2019, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant, again identifying it as a QWR, and requesting the same information as he did in July 2016. See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 19. Plaintiff included “[a]dditional loan identification” with his letter. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 19-23. On February 20, 2019, Defendant replied, indicating Plaintiff was not “authorized to receive information pertaining to the account[,]” and instructing Plaintiff to “ resubmit [his] request along with the attached Third Party Authorization Form, executed by the mortgagors.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 25-26. Instead of resubmitting his request as instructed, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Troy City Court on March 6, 2019, beginning this civil action. See Dkt. No. 1 at 2-6. Defendant then removed the action to the Northern District on March 27, 2019. See Dkt. No. 1 at 1-3. On April 18, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Dkt. No. 14. In its motion, Defendant first argues Plaintiff lacks standing because he “is not a party to the Zebrowski Loan[,]” and therefore “ he cannot possibly be damaged by” the alleged RESPA violation. Dkt. No. 14-1 at 5. Defendant also asserts that “Plaintiff’s failure to allege actual damages is fatal to his claim and requires dismissal.” Id. Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint “is defective on its face” because the correspondence Plaintiff refers to as QWRs “are not QWRs within the meaning of RESPA.” Id. at 5-6. Defendant states the documents are not valid QWRs because they “do not request information concerning the ‘servicing’ of the Zebrowski Loan[,] nor do they contain any information relating to an alleged error.” Id. at 5-6. Therefore, Defendant concludes that even if Plaintiff had standing, the documents submitted by Plaintiff are “insufficient to trigger any obligation or liability under RESPA[.]” Id. at 6. Accordingly, Defendant finds Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 11. In his response, Plaintiff lists seven “[i]ssues to be adjudicated on this FRCP 12(b) motion to dismiss” and asserts he “has suffered actual damages in addition to statutory damages” because he was “compelled to pay legal counsel to issue subpoenas…in an attempt to obtain the information that [Defendant] Selene refused to provide as required under the RESPA statute.” Dkt. No. 16 at
