Harrington v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation
2:15-cv-00322
M.D. Fla.Jun 14, 2017Background
- Harrington and wife signed a construction agreement in Sept. 2003, with a loan secured by a mortgage on the property.
- Loan file containing Note and Mortgage passed to Multibank, which assigned the file to RoundPoint for debt service.
- Harringtons defaulted; RoundPoint attempted contact but initially had incorrect contact information, later allegedly obtained Harrington’s cell via a 2010 call and then pursued contact.
- In June 2011, a caller claimed to be Lori Harrington provided Harrington’s cell number, after which RoundPoint increasingly attempted calls to his cell.
- Harrington sued on May 28, 2015 for TCPA and FCCPA violations; the Court previously struck Harrington’s jury trial demand due to a mortgage waiver.
- Harrington now seeks reconsideration; he also seeks an advisory jury for the Multibank claim, which the court treats as a separate issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is reconsideration appropriate for Harrington's motion? | Harrington contends reconsideration is warranted to revisit thejury-waiver and related issues. | Defendants argue no intervening law or new evidence and the original ruling was proper. | DENIED; no intervening authority or new evidence shown. |
| Should the jury waiver in the Mortgage bind TCPA/FCCPA claims against RoundPoint? | Harrington believes the waiver should not apply since the claims arise from TCPA/FCCPA and not the Mortgage. | Court previously held the claims are inextricably linked to the Mortgage and subject to the waiver. | DENIED; the waiver applies to TCPA/FCCPA claims arising from the Mortgage. |
| Can Harrington raise new arguments about RoundPoint’s participation in the Mortgage on reconsideration? | Harrington suggests the issue was not addressed previously and RoundPoint’s status should be reconsidered. | Waiver of new arguments on reconsideration functions as a bar. | DENIED; new arguments not properly raised are waived. |
| Should the court empanel an advisory jury for the Multibank claim? | Requests advisory jury as a matter of perceived fairness or practice. | Advisory jury is discretionary and not warranted given the case's structure and efficiency concerns. | Denied; no compelling reason to empanel advisory jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGinley v. Houston, 361 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2004) (district judge should give weight to prior decisions but not bound by them)
- Waite v. AII Acquisition Corp., 194 F. Supp. 3d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (motions for reconsideration require more than restating arguments; waiver of new grounds)
- Taylor Woodrow Construction Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (reconsideration standards and standards for jury-related issues)
- Reed v. Riddle Airlines, 266 F.2d 314 (5th Cir. 1959) (advisory jury considerations in civil trials)