Glover v. Federal Deposit Insurance
698 F.3d 139
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Glover entered a 2002 WaMu mortgage, later fell behind due to injuries, and sought a workout,” which WaMu denied in 2006.
- WaMu filed a 2006 foreclosure; Udren Law Offices represented WaMu; Wells Fargo later acquired the loan.
- In 2008-2009, Glover entered a modification with Wells Fargo; foreclosure dismissal occurred in 2009 but suit continued.
- FDIC, as WaMu receiver, moved to stay claims under FIRREA during its claims review; stays extended proceedings.
- Glover filed a 2009 amended complaint alleging FDCPA and FCEUA violations arising from Udren’s alleged failure to withdraw the foreclosure after modification; District Court dismissed on statute of limitations and debt-collector grounds.
- On appeal, court analyzes Rule 15(c) relation back, accrual/tolling of FDCPA claims, FIRREA tolling, and FCEUA’s debt-collector scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended FDCPA claim related back to original pleading | Glover—claims relate back under Rule 15(c) | Udren—no fair notice of amended claim | Amendment does not relate back; not fair notice |
| When the FDCPA claim accrued | Accrual date should be when modification made falsehood occurred | Accrual when defendant learned of modification | Accrual date set as January 4, 2008; timely issue not saved by relation back |
| Whether FIRREA tolling applies to FDCPA claim | FIRREA tolling extended time | FIRREA tolling not applicable to Udren claims | FIRREA tolling not applied beyond 200 days; claim untimely |
| Whether Udren qualifies as a debt collector under FCEUA | Udren falls within FDCPA-type collection activities | FCEUA’s debt-collector definition narrower; excludes some attorney conduct | Udren not a debt collector under FCEUA; FCEUA claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (U.S. 2010) (relation back hinges on fair notice of amended claims)
- Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1984) (fair notice and relation back constraints; not save stale claims)
- Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 387 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2004) (relation back requires notice of the amended claim's basis)
- Nelson v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 60 F.3d 1010 (3d Cir. 1995) (limits on relation back; avoid end-runs around statutes of limitations)
- Meijer, Inc. v. Biovail Corp., 533 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (assessing connection between original and amended claims)
- Mattson v. U.S. West Commc’ns, Inc., 967 F.2d 259 (8th Cir. 1992) (accrual timing considerations for FDCPA-like claims)