Bessie Lee Pregana v. Citimortgage, Inc.
702 F. App'x 624
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bessie Lee‑Freitas Pregana and Brian Joseph Pregana, Sr. sued after foreclosure of their home, asserting federal claims against CitiMortgage, Inc.
- The district court granted summary judgment for CitiMortgage; the Preganas appealed pro se.
- Central factual dispute: whether CitiMortgage held the promissory note and thus had standing to foreclose.
- Plaintiffs also alleged FDCPA violations (that defendants were debt collectors), TILA violations (timely disclosure), and sought sanctions and a continuance for additional discovery under Rule 56(d).
- The district court denied sanctions and denied the Rule 56(d) continuance for failure to identify necessary discovery or show it was essential to oppose summary judgment.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to foreclose (holder of note) | CitiMortgage did not hold the note; foreclosure invalid | CitiMortgage was the holder entitled to enforce the instrument | Court: No genuine dispute; CitiMortgage entitled to enforce under Hawaii U.C.C. rule; summary judgment affirmed |
| FDCPA (debt collector status) | Defendants acted as debt collectors and violated FDCPA | Defendants are not debt collectors because debt was not in default when acquired or they were servicers/holders | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show defendants were debt collectors; summary judgment affirmed |
| TILA (statute of limitations / equitable tolling) | TILA claim timely or equitable tolling applies | TILA claim time‑barred; no basis for equitable tolling | Court: One‑year limitations period expired; no equitable tolling; summary judgment affirmed |
| Sanctions & Rule 56(d) continuance | Sought sanctions for bad faith and more time/ discovery essential | No bad faith by opposing counsel; plaintiffs failed to identify needed facts for 56(d) | Court: Denials not an abuse of discretion; sanctions and continuance properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Oskoui v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 851 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review de novo for appeal of summary judgment)
- Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 720 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff must plead facts allowing inference that defendant is a debt collector under FDCPA)
- De Dios v. Int’l Realty & Invs., 641 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2011) (entity with preexisting rent‑collection duties not an FDCPA debt collector)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling of TILA available when plaintiff cannot obtain vital information)
- Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distribution Corp., 606 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2010) (bad faith required for sanctions under district court’s inherent authority)
- Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2008) (standards for Rule 56(d) continuance/need to identify essential discovery)
- Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for denial of discovery in response to summary judgment)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate court will not consider issues not distinctly raised in opening brief)