Molina v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89330
D.D.C.2012Background
- Molina sues the FDIC, Ocwen, and Shapiro & Burson alleging discriminatory lending, servicing, and foreclosure practices related to his TBW loan and a putative minority class.
- TBW was a non-depository mortgage company; FDIC is not TBW’s successor/receiver because TBW was not an insured depository institution.
- Ocwen allegedly serviced Molina’s loan after TBW’s involvement and is accused of discriminatory servicing and foreclosures, including English-only communications and disparities affecting Latinos.
- Shapiro & Burson is alleged to have engaged in robo-signing and foreclosure practices, contracted with Ocwen, and contributed to unlawful foreclosures affecting minority borrowers.
- Molina’s complaint asserts class-wide harms but does not show that Molina himself suffered a concrete injury traceable to the defendants.
- The court addresses motions to dismiss for lack of standing (and lack of jurisdiction for FDIC) and for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Molina and class lack standing to sue the FDIC? | Molina alleges FDIC as TBW’s receiver has liability for TBW’s acts. | FDIC cannot be successor to TBW and lacks authority; no administrative exhaustion. | Yes; Molina lacks standing against FDIC; claims dismissed. |
| Do Molina and class lack standing to sue Ocwen? | Ocwen’s discriminatory servicing harmed minorities; Molina is part of the class. | Plaintiff has not shown a concrete injury or traceability to Ocwen actions. | Yes; Molina lacks standing against Ocwen; claims dismissed. |
| Do Molina and class lack standing to sue Shapiro & Burson? | Shapiro & Burson’s robo-signing and foreclosure practices harmed minorities generally. | Plaintiff has not shown a concrete, particularized injury to Molina personally. | Yes; Molina lacks standing against Shapiro & Burson; claims dismissed. |
| Do the FDCPA claims survive standing and merits considerations? | Shapiro & Burson violated the FDCPA by unlawful collection practices. | No concrete injury and no unlawful collection attempt shown; even statutory damages require some injury or unlawful attempt. | No; FDCPA claim fails for lack of injury and absence of unlawful debt collection activity against Molina. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Georgetown Reinsurance Co., 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (establishes standing principles and Article III limits)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (jurisdictional basis; cannot rely on mere allegations)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury in fact, traceability, redressability standards)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Grassroots Recycling Network v. EPA, 429 F.3d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (imminence of injury for standing must be concrete)
- Miller v. Wolpoff Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003) (FDCPA liability for attempts to collect unlawful debt)
- Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (standing and jurisdiction principles in D.C. Cir.)