Brinich-Barnes v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
1:24-cv-01414
| E.D. Cal. | May 5, 2025Background
- In 2007, Garland Barnes obtained a mortgage on property in Merced, CA; after his death in 2015, his daughter, Helen Brinich-Barnes, became administrator of his estate and responsible for the mortgage.
- The estate faced various servicing disputes with Ocwen (now PHH Mortgage Corp.) including alleged refusal to consider loan modification, misapplication of payments, and procedural errors during foreclosure.
- The property was foreclosed and sold at auction in August 2018; Brinich-Barnes contested the process and outcome, asserting wrongful foreclosure and related statutory violations.
- Brinich-Barnes previously litigated similar claims in California state court ("Ocwen I"), with judgment entered for Ocwen in April 2024 after a summary judgment motion, and she did not appeal.
- In November 2024, Brinich-Barnes filed the related federal action, realleging statutory and common law claims based on essentially the same facts as Ocwen I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata (claim preclusion) | New evidence/violations and differing causes of action justify relitigation | Same underlying harm, parties in privity, final judgment in state court bars the claims | Barred by res judicata; same primary right at issue as Ocwen I |
| Statute of limitations | Equitable tolling and continuing violations doctrine apply | Claims accrued between 2015-2018 and are time-barred under 1-4 year statutory limits | All claims time-barred on the face of the complaint |
| Leave to amend | Should be granted to add facts or clarify claims | Any amendment would be futile due to preclusion and limitation defenses | Denied; leave to amend would be futile |
| Standing/private right of action (Consumer Financial Protection Act) | Asserted claim as part of relief sought | No private right of action under the statute | Dismissed; claim not cognizable by statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984) (federal courts must apply state preclusion law to prior state court judgments)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (standard for plausibility in complaints)
- Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal. 4th 788 (2010) (California elements of res judicata)
- Le Parc Cmty. Ass’n v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 110 Cal. App. 4th 1161 (2003) (primary right analysis for California claim preclusion)
- San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Employees’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2009) (primary right doctrine)
- Kay v. City of Ranch Palos Verdes, 504 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2008) (finality for preclusion after appeal period lapses)