Sherrie Hampton-Muhamed v. James B. Nutter & Company
687 F. App'x 890
11th Cir.2017Background
- Hampton‑Muhamed (pro se) sued mortgage lender/servicer James B. Nutter & Company, several of its officers, the law firm Ronald R. Wolfe & Associates (RRW), and multiple RRW attorneys, alleging FDCPA and RESPA violations arising from efforts to foreclose a Florida property formerly owned by her deceased brother.
- The Northern District of Georgia transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); NDGA concluded MDFL was a proper and more convenient forum (property, witnesses, and proceedings located in Florida; some defendants lacked NDGA contacts).
- In MDFL, the district court dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state an FDCPA claim and for lack of RESPA standing; the dismissal was appealed.
- The courts held that mortgage foreclosure conduct (except potentially as to §1692f(6)) is generally not conduct covered by the FDCPA and many allegations concerned events more than one year before the complaint and were thus time‑barred under 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d).
- Allegations of changed locks, abandoned stickers, and property damage were tied to a third party; plaintiff’s own complaint pleaded no facts showing defendants directed or caused those acts, so pleading failed under Ashcroft v. Iqbal plausibility standards.
- Plaintiff did not appeal dismissal of claims against the individual RRW defendants and did not meaningfully raise RESPA arguments on appeal; those issues were deemed abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Properness of transfer under §1404(a) | NDGA was acceptable forum; travel restrictions not raised below | MDFL is proper and more convenient; many operative facts and witnesses in Florida; some defendants not subject to NDGA jurisdiction | Transfer affirmed — NDGA did not clearly abuse discretion |
| Whether foreclosure is "debt collection" under FDCPA | Foreclosure conduct violated FDCPA provisions | Foreclosure/enforcement of a security interest is not covered by FDCPA except limited application to §1692f(6) | Dismissal affirmed — foreclosure claims not actionable under FDCPA (except possibly §1692f(6)) |
| Timeliness of FDCPA claims | Letters and pre‑foreclosure acts support claims | Many alleged acts occurred more than one year before filing and are time‑barred | Dismissal affirmed — pre‑complaint acts beyond one‑year limitations period barred |
| Alleged property damage and lock changes | Defendants caused or directed third party to change locks/damage property | Plaintiff’s own pleadings show a third party acted and defendants only inspected exterior; no factual allegations tying defendants to the damage | Dismissal affirmed — failure to plausibly allege defendant causation or liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) (factors for §1404(a) transfer analysis)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Ho v. ReconTrust Co., NA, 840 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 2016) (foreclosure generally not FDCPA debt‑collection conduct)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541 (11th Cir. 2002) (district court not required to sua sponte grant leave to amend when no motion filed)
- Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2007) (amendment is futile if amended complaint still properly dismissible)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)
- Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 980 F.2d 648 (11th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for transfer: clear abuse of discretion)
- Glover v. Liggett Group, Inc., 459 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) review)