91 F. Supp. 3d 491
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Jordan, proceeding pro se, sues Chase entities, Deutsche Bank, and Shutts & Bowen over 2008 refinance, 2009 foreclosure, and 2012 Florida garnishment, alleging disability-based discrimination and related harms.
- Court previously dismissed initial complaint and granted leave to amend; the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) remains before the court
- Alleged: Chase promised same loan term but refinanced into a shorter adjustable-rate loan; disclosed discrimination based on disability income; foreclosure and credit reporting delays; garnishment resulting in asset freezes including exempt disability benefits.
- Florida litigation history is cited but largely irrelevant to federal claims here; SAC includes extensive non-parties and non-federal proceedings; court treats many Florida- litigation allegations as not state-court-related to the federal case.
- Court held federal claims (SSA §407, CCPA §1673, HAMP provisions) lack private rights of action and are dismissed; FHA claims time-barred or not properly alleging disability-based discrimination; diversity jurisdiction lacking; declines supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; overall dismissal of SAC with prejudice on federal claims and without prejudice on state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private rights of action under SSA §407, CCPA §1673, HAMP | Jordan argues private rights exist to enforce these provisions | Court previously held no private right of action; still no private remedy | No private right of action; claims dismissed with prejudice |
| FHA timeliness and continuing-violation theory | Equitable tolling/continuing-violation should salvage FHA claims | Equitable tolling not warranted; continuing-violation theory does not apply | FHA claims untimely or not properly pled; continuing-violation theory rejected |
| Discrimination claim under FHA/CCPA §1691; discriminatory motive | Allegations show disability-based discrimination | Allegations are conclusory and inconsistent with facts showing accommodation | No plausible discriminatory intent; claims fail |
| Residential real estate related-transaction scope of FHA | Garnishment/line of credit tied to mortgage-related issues | Actions not within residential real estate-related transactions | Garnishment/credit actions not within FHA scope; claims fail |
| Diversity and supplemental jurisdiction | Court should hear state-law claims under diversity or supplemental jurisdiction | Diversity lacking; federal claims dismissed; state claims not fall within supplemental jurisdiction | No diversity; supplemental jurisdiction declined; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellikoff v. Eaton Vance Corp., 481 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.2007) (private-right-of-action presumption; four-factor test for implied rights)
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (U.S.1975) (four-factor test for implied private rights of action)
- N.Y. City Environmental Justice Alliance v. Giuliani, 214 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.2000) (burden on plaintiff to show Congress intended private remedy)
- Townsel v. DISH Network L.L.C., 668 F.3d 967 (7th Cir.2012) (no private right of action under §407)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S.2009) (plausibility pleading standard)