Gorham-DiMaggio v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
421 F. App'x 97
2d Cir.2011Background
- Gorham-DiMaggio obtained a mortgage from Countrywide Financial Corp. and related entities.
- The loan was to be paid off at a fixed rate under a prior settlement agreement, but Gorham-DiMaggio defaulted in spring 2007.
- Gorham-DiMaggio, who is legally blind, filed FHA, ECOA, RESPA, and New York State law claims in January 2008 after attempting to contact defendants to resolve the default.
- The district court dismissed all but one of the claims on December 17, 2008.
- Gorham-DiMaggio sought leave to file a second amended complaint, which the district court denied.
- Discovery proceeded, and the district court later granted summary judgment for defendants on the remaining RESPA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly dismissed most claims | Gorham-DiMaggio argues more claims should proceed. | Countrywide contends the claims fail as pleaded under governing standards. | The district court's dismissal of all but one claim was affirmed. |
| Leave to amend the complaint | Gorham-DiMaggio sought leave to amend but magistrate denied it. | Defendants argue amendment would be futile. | The denial of leave to amend was affirmed as within discretion and futile given proposed amendments. |
| RESPSA QWR stalk and response adequacy | Gorham-DiMaggio contends defendants failed to properly acknowledge and respond to a QWR and cites potential spoliation. | Defendants maintained they acknowledged the QWR within 20 days via form letters and spoliation lacks material effect. | Summary judgment affirmed; defendants' acknowledgments satisfied RESPA where applicable. |
| Spoliation and adverse inference | Gorham-DiMaggio claims spoliation warrants adverse inferences about a damaged letter. | Even with presumed adverse inference, letters were acknowledged, so no material dispute exists. | Spoliation argument rejected; no material fact creates triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must plead plausible claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings clarified)
- Catanzaro v. Weiden, 188 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1999) (FHA claim requires discriminatory effect)
- Bickerstaff v. Vassar College, 196 F.3d 435 (2d Cir. 1999) (unsupported statements insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact)
- Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen, Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review for leave to amend)
- Dougherty v. Town of North Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (leave-to-amend standards include futility and prejudice)
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) (summary judgment considerations and material facts)
- Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc., 575 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2009) (material-fact concept in evaluating summary judgment)