Temple v. Reliance First Capital LLC, 2:24-cv-00634

Erica Davis Temple, proceeding pro se, sued Reliance First Capital, LLC and Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), breach of contract, and breach of good faith and fair dealing.
Temple’s claims arose after payment misapplications and credit reporting issues connected to her mortgage and participation in a loss mitigation program.
Defendants moved to dismiss; the court converted the motion into one for summary judgment after Temple submitted evidence outside the pleadings.
Temple filed multiple motions, including for injunctive relief, sanctions, leave to amend, to lift the discovery stay, and for a hearing.
The court ultimately granted summary judgment to Defendants on the RESPA claims, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and dismissed all pending motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Defendants violate RESPA’s response and investigation duties?	Reliance and Dovenmuehle failed to respond to qualified written requests and notices of error related to loan servicing.	Temple did not send required communications to the designated address, so no duty triggered.	For Defendants; failure to use the designated address means no RESPA violation.
Are injunctive relief remedies available for these claims?	Requested injunctive relief (credit correction, cease violations).	No injunctive relief available under RESPA or FCRA and none was pled in the complaint.	Denied; neither statute allows injunctive relief, and not plead in complaint.
Should leave to file a second amended complaint be granted?	Sought to add additional RESPA, FCRA, FHA, ECOA, and contract claims.	Claims are vague, conclusory, or futile as a matter of law.	Denied as futile; claims either legally insufficient or repetitive.
Should motions for discovery relief, sanctions, hearing be granted?	Claimed discovery or further process would support her case.	No showing of specific new facts to rebut summary judgment, and matter is resolved.	Denied; no basis for further discovery, sanctions, or hearings.

Bivens v. Bank of Am., N.A., 868 F.3d 915 (11th Cir. 2017) (servicer has no RESPA duty to respond to requests not sent to designated address)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaints must allege more than conclusory statements)
Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. 411 (2022) (standards for preliminary injunction)
Noble Prestige Ltd. v. Galle, 83 F.4th 1366 (11th Cir. 2023) (injunctive relief must be pled in complaint)
Fox v. Acadia State Bank, 937 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1991) (discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions)
Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1993) (discretion in imposing Rule 37 sanctions)
Almanza v. United Airlines, Inc., 851 F.3d 1060 (11th Cir. 2017) (leave to amend may be denied when futile)