David I. Houck v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
689 F. App'x 662
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff David Houck sued Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank (as trustee) challenging his mortgage validity, assignments, and alleging FDCPA violations; district court dismissed and Houck appealed.
- There was a prior California Superior Court judgment resolving substantially the same mortgage-validity claims.
- Houck alleged the mortgage and subsequent assignments (Wells Fargo → U.S. Bank → Cal‑Western) were unlawful and caused harm.
- Houck also asserted defendants were "debt collectors" under the FDCPA for their collection conduct.
- District court dismissed for res judicata, lack of standing as to assignments, and that defendants were creditors (not FDCPA debt collectors); Second Circuit AFFIRMED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata bars relitigation of mortgage-validity claims | Houck: prior state action differs because primary rights differ | Defendants: state judgment resolved same primary rights; claim preclusion applies | Court: Affirmed — California res judicata precludes mortgage-validity claims |
| Standing re: assignments of mortgage | Houck: invalid/unauthorized assignments injured him | Defendants: assignment does not change mortgagor’s repayment obligation; no concrete injury | Court: Affirmed — no cognizable injury from assignment; no Article III standing |
| FDCPA status of defendants | Houck: defendants engaged in abusive/deceptive collection and are debt collectors | Defendants: they are creditors collecting debts owed to them, not FDCPA debt collectors | Court: Affirmed — defendants are creditors; FDCPA claim fails |
| Sufficiency of complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) | Houck: alleged facts suffice to state plausible claims | Defendants: allegations insufficient to overcome res judicata/standing/statutory scope | Court: Affirmed dismissal under 12(b)(6) after de novo review |
Key Cases Cited
- Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2001) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2014) (mortgagor not injured by assignment; standing analysis)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (Article III injury-in-fact requirement)
- Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008) (FDCPA definition and who is a debt collector)
- Conopoco, Inc. v. Roll Intern., 231 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000) (federal courts apply preclusion law of rendering state)
- Burdette v. Carrier Corp., 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (claim preclusion under California law)