MacIas v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
718 F. App’x 32
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Macias, a California homeowner, sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (servicer) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (trustee/owner) alleging an invalid assignment of his 2007 mortgage and related unlawful collection and foreclosure-related misrepresentations/omissions.
- Macias filed an Amended Complaint in the Southern District of New York; the district court dismissed all claims and closed the case.
- Macias appealed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, challenging dismissal of FDCPA, California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), TILA, slander of title, constructive fraud, and declaratory judgment claims, and the district court’s implicit denial of leave to amend.
- The Second Circuit reviewed dismissal de novo for the pleadings and reviewed denial of jurisdiction for abuse of discretion and denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion.
- The panel affirmed dismissal of the substantive claims largely for failure to plead elements or timeliness, and for lack of Article III standing as to the declaratory judgment claim.
- The panel vacated the denial of leave to amend because the district court did not give any reason for denying amendment and remanded for reconsideration whether there is good reason to deny leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA liability for Ocwen | Ocwen’s servicing/collection conduct violated FDCPA | Ocwen is not a "debt collector" because loan was not in default when it became servicer | Dismissed: plaintiff conceded loan not in default; Ocwen not a debt collector under FDCPA |
| HBOR violations | Ocwen failed to provide required notices and otherwise breached HBOR | Pleading lacks factual detail to meet Rule 8/Iqbal standards | Dismissed: allegations were conclusory and insufficient |
| TILA claim based on 2007 transfer | Loan transfer violated TILA disclosure requirements | TILA one-year statute of limitations bars claim brought in 2016; equitable tolling not plausibly pleaded | Dismissed as time-barred; equitable tolling inadequately alleged |
| Slander of title / constructive fraud (state law) | Notices/recordings and omissions support slander and constructive fraud under California law | Notices alone insufficient to plead malice for slander; no fiduciary relationship for constructive fraud | Dismissed: slander of title inadequately pleads malice; constructive fraud fails for lack of fiduciary relationship |
| Declaratory judgment re: assignment validity | Plaintiff seeks declaration that defendants have no interest due to invalid assignment | Injury is speculative because plaintiff does not dispute default; thus no Article III injury | Dismissed for lack of standing; district court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction not shown to be abuse |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiff requested leave to cure pleading defects and add claims | Defendants offered no futility response in reply; district court implicitly denied without stated reason | Vacated: denial of leave to amend was without stated reason; remanded to decide whether good reason exists to deny amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Muto v. CBS Corp., 668 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Koch v. Christie’s Int’l PLC, 699 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2012) (standards for equitable tolling/fraudulent concealment)
- Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2014) (Article III standing for challenges to assignments)
- Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003) (review standard for discretionary refusal to exercise declaratory judgment jurisdiction)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) (waiver and forfeiture principles on appeal)
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) (standards for denial of leave to amend; reasons for denial)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent good reason)