Harris v. Citimortgage, Inc.
878 F. Supp. 2d 154
D.D.C.2012Background
- Harris bought a DC property in 2005 with a $220,000 loan from CitiMortgage, Inc. (CMI).
- Harris allegedly defaulted and the trustee foreclosed, with a trustee’s deed issued in March 2009.
- During foreclosure negotiations, Harris claims he was told a loan modification existed and sent $3,500, but never received modification documents.
- Harris alleges IMF/CMI-MERS engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, and nondisclosures, including improper asset/income disclosures and failure to provide TILA/RESPA disclosures.
- Harris filed suit in DC Superior Court on July 19, 2011; defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss; the court grants in part and denies in part.
- The court analyzes TILA and RESPA limitations, tolling, and related claims, dismissing some counts while allowing others to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TILA’s one-year limitations are jurisdictional. | Harris contends §1640(e) is not jurisdictional and tolling can apply. | Defendants argue limitations are jurisdictional and tolling not available. | TILA limitations are not jurisdictional; tolling may apply. |
| Whether RESPA claim is time-barred and tolling available. | Harris seeks equitable tolling. | RESPA limitations are jurisdictional and not tollable. | RESPA claim time-barred; not tollable; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether injunction, quiet title, and unjust enrichment claims survive. | These claims are dismissed as independent causes of action. | ||
| Whether gross negligence claim is time-barred and viable. | Harris pleads tolling based on concealment. | Limitations bar the claim. | Gross negligence claim not time-barred at this stage; survives. |
| Whether predatory lending/dC Act claim survives and standing issues. | Harris alleges predatory lending; standing contested. | CMI had standing to foreclose and PSA issues are insufficient. | Predatory lending claim survives at this stage; standing argument not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (pleading standards; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (clear-statement rule for jurisdictional prerequisites)
- Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (U.S. Supreme Court 1946) (equitable tolling recognized in limitations contexts)
- Hardin v. City Title & Escrow Co., 797 F.2d 1037 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (discussed linkage of jurisdiction and limitations in TILA context)