Read the following case. The court provides the general rule regarding the law as well as the specific rule regarding the issue. Without quoting from the text, what is the general rule? What is the specific rule? In other words, whatare the elements of "wrongful foreclosure"? What burden is a plaintiff required to meet in an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress? Remember to keep it simple and short. No more than fifty words.

Citation: Thompson-El v. Bank of Am., N.A., 327 Ga. App. 309, 759 S.E.2d 49 (2014).

Case:

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:12-CV-840-TWT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Thompson-El v. Bank of Am., N.A. Decided Dec 12, 2012 CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:12-CV-840-TWT Bank of America, N.A., and Federal National 12-12-2012 Mortgage Association's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 24] are DENIED as MOOT. ELLA M. THOMPSON-EL, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Defendants. I. Background Plaintiff, Ella M. Thompson-El, purchased THOMAS W. THRASH property located at 4454 Pamela Lane, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30331 (the "Property"), on ORDER December 1, 2000. (Compl. { 11). The Plaintiff This is an action for wrongful foreclosure. It is executed a promissory note and security deed with before the Court on Defendants William Braswell Defendant Bank of America. (Compl. 1 12). The and Century 21 Bryant Realty's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff timely made her mortgage payments until [Doc. 4], Defendant Fowler, Hein, Cheatwood & experiencing hardship in 2009. (Compl. 1 13). Williams, P.A.'s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 5], The Plaintiff notified Bank of America of her Defendant Mccalla Raymer, LLC's Motion to hardship and requested a loan modification. In Dismiss [Doc. 7], the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss response, Bank of America offered a modification Defendant Fowler, Hein, Cheatwood, & Williams, requiring substantially larger payments than the P.A. [Doc. 18], and Defendants BAC Home Loans Plaintiff was currently required to make, along Servicing, LP, Bank of America, N.A., and with a new down payment of $10,000. (Compl. 11 Federal National Mortgage Association's Motion 14-15). The Plaintiff determined this rate was to Dismiss [Doc. 24]. For the reasons set forth impermissible under the law and notified Bank of below, the Court concludes it does not have America. (Compl. { 16). *3 subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Defendants William Braswell, Century 21 Bryant Apparently without further communication, on Realty, Fowler, Hein, Cheatwood & Williams, October 5, 2010, Bank of America foreclosed on P.A., Mccalla Raymer, LLC, BAC Home Loans the Property. (Compl. { 17). The Plaintiff contends Servicing, LP, Bank of America, N.A., and she was not given proper notice of the foreclosure Federal National Mortgage Association are *2 and that she first learned of the foreclosure three DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants days later when Defendant Braswell left a William Braswell and Century 21 Bryant Realty's message on the Property's door. (Compl. 11 17- Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4], Defendant Fowler, 18). Upon learning of the foreclosure, the Plaintiff Hein, Cheatwood & Williams, P.A.'s Motion to contacted BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, and Dismiss [Doc. 5], Defendant Mccalla Raymer, was told her loan modification was still under LLC's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7], and review and that BAC was unaware of any Defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, foreclosure. What followed was a series of state casetextThompson-El v. Bank of Am., N.A. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:12-CV-840... court proceedings and confusion concerning the Here, the Plaintiff only alleges a single cause of foreclosure and modification processes, the details action capable of invoking federal question of which do not need to be recited in this Order. jurisdiction: the alleged breach of the Emergency The Plaintiff filed the instant suit on March 12, Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the "EESA"). 2012, alleging causes of action for Wrongful (Compl. 11 62-68). However, the EESA does not Foreclosure in violation of O.C.G.A. $ 44-14- provide a private cause of action. See Miller v. 162.2(a), for the Breach of the Implied Covenant Chase Home Finance, LLC, 677 F.3d 1113, 1115- of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, for Breach of the 17 (11th Cir. 2012) (reviewing the EESA and the 5 regulations *5 promulgated under it and Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, and for concluding that the act provides neither an express Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. nor an implied private right of action). The Plaintiff's complaint alleged diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. $ 1332. (Compl. 1 1). A plaintiff cannot establish federal question However, the Plaintiff's complaint also seemed to jurisdiction through a statute that does not provide a private cause of action. See Jairath v. Dyer, 154 allege that four of the Defendants, Mccalla F.3d 1280, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Raymer, LLC, Fowler, Hein, Cheatwood & Williams, P.A., Century 21 Bryant Realty, and Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 814 (1986)); Zoher v. NHC William Braswell were citizens of Georgia, where the Plaintiff is also a citizen. (See Compl. 11 3- Healthcare Sys., No. 2:11-cv-00086, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131063, at *5-6 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 10). Defendant Mccalla Raymer argued in its 2011) ("Since there is no private cause of action motion to dismiss that the Plaintiff had not [under the federal statute], there is no claim that properly pled diversity jurisdiction. *4 (See Def. Mccalla Raymer's Br. in Supp. of Def. Mccalla arises under' federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. $ 1331."). Accordingly, because the EESA Raymer's Mot. to Dismiss, at 7-9). In response, the does not provide a private cause of action, the Plaintiff conceded that diversity jurisdiction was improper and argued that the Court should Plaintiff has not established federal question jurisdiction. The Court therefore concludes it does exercise federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1332. (See Pl.'s Br. in Opp. to Def. not have jurisdiction over this matter. Mccalla Raymer's Mot. to Dismiss, at 6). III. Conclusion II. Discussion For the reasons set forth above, the Court does not The Court is obligated to inquire into its own have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, Defendants William Braswell, jurisdiction. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over, among other cases, "federal Century 21 Bryant Realty, Fowler, Hein, Cheatwood & Williams, P.A., Mccalla Raymer, question" cases. Federal question cases are those "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of LLC, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Bank of the United States." 28 U.S.C. $ 1331. A case America, N.A., and Federal National Mortgage "arises under" federal law "if federal law creates Association are DISMISSED without prejudice. the cause of action, or if a substantial disputed Defendants William Braswell and Century 21 issue of federal law is a necessary element of a Bryant Realty's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4], state law claim." Pacheco de Perez v. AT&T Co., 6 Defendant *6 Fowler, Hein, Cheatwood & 139 F.3d 1368, 1373 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing Williams, P.A.'s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 5], Defendant Mccalla Raymer, LLC's Motion to Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 Dismiss [Doc. 7], the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Fowler, Hein, Cheatwood, & Williams, (1983)). etext