Richard Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, In, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6450

Background

In 2006 the Haases took a $173,600 home‑equity loan; the Security Agreement required them to maintain homeowner’s insurance and authorized the lender to procure coverage at the borrower’s expense if they failed to maintain it.
Countrywide (later Bank of America as servicer) purchased insurance when the Haases let their policy lapse in 2007 and increased the monthly payment to reflect the lender‑placed premium; Countrywide later credited a portion when the Haases produced replacement coverage.
The Haases sued pro se in Texas state court alleging breach of contract, DTPA violations, and related state claims; they later amended to add a RESPA claim in May 2012, prompting removal to federal court.
In federal court the magistrate judge recommended (and the district court adopted) summary judgment for Bank of America and Deutsche Bank on the RESPA claim, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of claims against Morgan Stanley and Barrett Daffin, and denial of the Haases’ motions for sanctions and to compel discovery; the district court remanded remaining state claims to state court.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit considered jurisdiction over the partial final judgment (including remand), reviewed the RESPA statute of limitations, Rule 12(b)(6) pleading sufficiency against Morgan Stanley and Barrett Daffin, and discretionary denials of sanctions and discovery relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists over the district court’s order that granted relief to some defendants and remanded remaining claims	Haases appealed the adverse dispositions (but not the remand) and asked for review	Defendants argued the judgment was not a final appealable decision because state claims were remanded without merits adjudication	Court held it has jurisdiction; remand orders are final for appeal purposes (Adair/Quackenbush) and affirmed reviewability
Whether Haases’ RESPA claims are timely	Haases argued RESPA violations occurred and should proceed	Defendants argued most RESPA allegations accrued more than three years before the May 2012 amendment and are time‑barred; only the July 2011 servicer notice claim fell within three years but was refuted by evidence of notice	Court held most RESPA claims were barred by the three‑year statute of limitations and affirmed summary judgment for Bank of America and Deutsche Bank on RESPA
Whether Haases stated plausible state‑law claims against Morgan Stanley and Barrett Daffin under Rule 12(b)(6)	Haases alleged breach, fraud, conspiracy, and that assignments were improper (e.g., trust/certificate issues)	Morgan Stanley and Barrett Daffin argued lack of factual allegations tying them to wrongful conduct; assignment was to Deutsche Bank as trustee, not to an ineligible "certificate"	Court held Haases failed to plead plausible claims against either defendant and affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
Whether district court abused discretion in denying Rule 11 sanctions and motion to compel discovery	Haases claimed Deutsche Bank altered the Note and sought sanctions; also argued discovery was denied improperly	Defendants showed only a notation difference (endorsement reflecting assignment); district court found discovery requests overbroad or irrelevant and plaintiffs had essential documents	Court held no abuse of discretion; affirmed denial of sanctions and motion to compel

Key Cases Cited

Adair v. Lease Partners, Inc., 587 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding a district court’s remand order is final for appeal purposes)
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) (discussing finality and appealability of remand orders)
Regan v. Starcraft Marine LLC, 524 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognized appellate jurisdiction where district dismissed federal claims and remanded state claims)
Snow v. First American Title Ins. Co., 332 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2003) (RESPA private‑claim three‑year limitations rule)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: claims must be plausible)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requiring facts sufficient to state a plausible claim)
Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles, L.L.C., 736 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard referenced)
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 1995) (pro se briefs construed liberally)
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (arguments must be briefed to be preserved)