Case: 13-11671 Date Filed: 04/01/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11671
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-02126-SCJ
ADRIAN AMBARUS
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC,
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 1, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11671 Date Filed: 04/01/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Adrian Ambarus appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Amended
Complaint alleging, inter alia, wrongful foreclosure on the basis of a fraudulently
assigned security deed. After review, 1 we conclude both of the arguments
Ambarus raises on appeal fail, and we therefore affirm.
Ambarus first asserts the assignment of the security deed from Bank of
America to BAC Home Loans Servicing was not valid. Ambarus does not have
standing to contest the validity of the assignment, however. After the district
court’s order was issued, the Georgia Court of Appeals 2 held that a borrower lacks
standing to challenge an assignment, as the borrower is not a party to the contract.
Montgomery v. Bank of Am., 740 S.E.2d 434, 437-38 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
Second, Ambarus contends the district court should have granted him leave
to amend his Amended Complaint so he could plead fraudulent assignment with
sufficient particularity. Ambarus, who has had counsel throughout this litigation,
never requested such leave from the district court. It is well-settled law in this
Circuit that “[a] district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his
complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed
1
A district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 704 F.3d 882, 887
(11th Cir. 2013).
2
Ambarus’s Amended Complaint contained a count alleging a violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. The district court exercised supplemental
jurisdiction over the claims brought pursuant to Georgia state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2
Case: 13-11671 Date Filed: 04/01/2014 Page: 3 of 3
a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.” Wagner
v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc).
Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Ambarus’s Amended
Complaint.
AFFIRMED.
3