Joseph Guerra v. Just Mortgage, Inc.
671 F. App'x 414
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Joseph A. Guerra sued over actions at origination and servicing of his mortgage loan, asserting claims under RESPA, TILA, and Nevada UCC Articles 3 and 9 against defendants including JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Just Mortgage, Inc.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; Guerra appealed pro se.
- Guerra contended his correspondence to Chase constituted a RESPA qualified written request (QWR), sought TILA damages and rescission, and alleged UCC violations; he also challenged defendants’ standing and sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
- Defendants argued Guerra’s RESPA letters were not QWRs, some statutory claims lacked a private right or were time-barred, and TILA damages and rescission were precluded by limitations or compliance with disclosure requirements.
- The district court found no genuine disputes of material fact on statutory compliance and limitations, denied Guerra’s Rule 60(b) motion, and adjudicated motions on briefs without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guerra’s letter to Chase was a RESPA QWR | Letter challenged loan matters and thus was a QWR | Letter did not properly challenge servicing and so was not a QWR | Not a QWR; summary judgment for Chase affirmed |
| Whether Just Mortgage violated RESPA (12 U.S.C. § 2603/§ 2607) | Alleged statutory RESPA violations at origination | § 2603 provides no private right; § 2607 claims time-barred | § 2603 no private right; § 2607 barred by one-year limitations; summary judgment for Just Mortgage affirmed |
| Whether TILA damages or rescission available against Just Mortgage | Sought TILA damages and/or rescission for disclosure failures | Damages barred by one-year limitations; disclosures shown compliant | TILA damages barred; rescission claim defeated by evidence of compliance; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Guerra raised viable claims under Nevada UCC Articles 3 and 9 | Alleged note/instrument and perfection/enforcement defects | No evidence of demand to exhibit instrument or Article 9 violation; no genuine factual dispute | Summary judgment for defendants on Articles 3 and 9 claims affirmed |
| Procedural challenges (standing, jurisdiction, hearing, Rule 60(b)) | Contended defendants lacked standing; court lacked jurisdiction; needed oral hearing; Rule 60(b) relief warranted | Motions properly decided on briefs; no grounds shown for Rule 60(b) relief | Procedural contentions rejected; denial of Rule 60(b) not abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment issues)
- Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 704 F.3d 661 (9th Cir.) (only letters challenging loan servicing qualify as RESPA QWRs)
- Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 598 F.3d 549 (9th Cir.) (no private right of action under 12 U.S.C. § 2603)
- Caffasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment requires non-speculative evidence of specific facts)
- School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir.) (standards and grounds for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (appellate court will not consider issues not raised in opening brief)