MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff William Blagrove brings a wrongful foreclosure action against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”), Jeffrey Miller, Esq., and AGUU Homes, LLC. Defendant Deutsche Bank moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Defendant’s motion is granted. BACKGROUND The following factual allegations are taken from plaintiff’s complaint, documents integral to plaintiff’s complaint, and documents amenable to judicial notice. A. Factual Background Records at the Office of the City Register reflect that plaintiff William Blagrove mortgaged real property at 1603 East 95th Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11236 for a $488,000 loan on May 26, 2006. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A at 1 (Dkt. #10). In 2014, defendant Deutsche Bank filed a foreclosure action against plaintiff in Kings County, alleging that plaintiff failed to make a payment in 2008. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. B. In 2016, summary judgment was granted to Deutsche Bank. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. D. In 2018, a final judgment of foreclosure and sale was issued in favor of Deutsche Bank. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. E. In 2019, plaintiff moved to vacate the judgment, and that motion was denied. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. F. B. Procedural History Plaintiff then filed this wrongful foreclosure action. See Compl. 6 (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to disclose documents during negotiations over the mortgage. For example, plaintiff alleges that defendants “refused to provide…copies of important documents, including the complete mortgage and note, which would explain [plaintiff's] consumer rights,” id. 9; and that defendants “refused to…disclose that the loan obtained had an interest rate higher than stated,” id. 10. Plaintiff further alleges that he “never…gave the defendants a signed copy of the purported mortgage” despite what the city records purport to show. Id. 8. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants failed to disclose documents after his purported default. For example, plaintiff alleges that defendants did not deliver an “accounting to show where the amounts owed were derived from.” Id. 13. And plaintiff alleges that defendants never delivered any “acceleration statement” that would “accelerat[e] the purported loan.” Id. 14. On these allegations, plaintiff brings twenty-five causes of action. A first set of claims allege that defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §1601, when defendants did not give various “mortgage documents” to plaintiffs, Compl.
16-19, including “proper notices,” id.
