Campanella v. Aurora Loan Servicing
1:10-cv-00684
N.D.N.Y.Aug 25, 2011Background
- Campanella brought federal and state claims against Aurora for alleged mortgage-related misconduct arising from a 2007 loan and foreclosure; federal claims under TILA, RESPA, HOEPA, and state claims including unjust enrichment and fraud were filed in 2010.
- Aurora moved to dismiss; the court granted dismissals for statute of limitations and preclusion, and denied temporary relief sought by Campanella.
- The state foreclosure action resulted in a summary-judgment order and an order of reference against Campanella; Campanella appealed within the state action and then pursued federal litigation.
- The federal court concluded the state-court judgment and related proceedings precluded Campanella’s new theories and that the claims accrued earlier, with equitable tolling not applying.
- Campanella filed motions for reconsideration which the court denied, leading to the present memorandum-decision and order denying reconsideration.
- The decision rests on res judicata/issue preclusion analysis, due-process considerations, and standard of review for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Campanella argues concealment and fraud toll tolling. | AuroraNone; no concealment proven. | Equitable tolling not shown. |
| Whether state court foreclosure precludes federal claims | Campanella seeks different remedies/theories. | State adjudication on merits bars claims. | Preclusion applies to federal claims. |
| Whether due process was violated | Campanella asserts deprivation of due process. | Parties had opportunity to be heard. | Due process not violated. |
| Whether pro se status excuses pleading deficiencies | Pro se status should cure pleading gaps. | Rules still apply regardless of status. | Pro se status does not excuse noncompliance. |
| Proper standard for reconsideration denials | Motions for reconsideration highlight overlooked authorities. | No controlling decision or new evidence changes outcome. | Standard satisfied; reconsideration denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (high standard for reconsideration: may change outcome only if overlooked authorities)
- Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (three grounds for reconsideration)
- Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1994) (interpret pro se arguments in the strongest light)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se litigants must still meet legal standards)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Conopco, Inc. v. Roll Int’l, 231 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000) (due process/gives notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2001) (definition of adjudication on the merits for res judicata)