Vincent v. Money Store
915 F. Supp. 2d 553
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiffs bring a purported CAFA class action against The Money Store defendants, Wells Fargo, Barclays, Ocwen, and Moss Codilis for state-law claims (fraud, unjust enrichment, and California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) and breach of contract against The Money Store group; Colorado unauthorized practice claim against Moss Codilis; CAFA jurisdiction asserted.
- The facts largely mirror Vincent I, a prior action where federal claims were dismissed and state-law claims were declined for supplemental jurisdiction; Vincent II was filed in federal court under CAFA.
- The Money Store defendants employed Moss Codilis to send default letters; plaintiffs received breach notices between 1997 and 2000; plaintiffs contend the letters contained misstatements and improper legal fees were charged.
- Loans at issue were fully paid: Garridos by 2003, Gutierrez by 2004, and Vincent by 2002; plaintiffs allege successors-in-interest to The Money Store are defendants in Vincent II.
- The court addresses statutes of limitations and tolling theories (1367(d), American Pipe, NY CPLR 205(a) and 202 borrowing statute) and rules on whether Barclays/Ocwen are proper tolling parties.
- The court grants/denies partial summary judgment: Garridos’ NY claims tolled and may proceed; Gutierrez and Vincent barred; Barclays and Ocwen dismissed for lack of party status in Vincent I; Wells Fargo/Moss Codilis rulings follow accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tolling under CPLR 205(a) for NY residents? | Garridos claims tolled by 205(a) after Vincent I dismissal. | 205(a) does not apply to this CAFA context or to non-appealed state claims. | 205(a) applies to NY residents; Garridos’ claims tolled. |
| American Pipe tolling for state-law claims in a CAFA case? | American Pipe tolling tolls pending class actions. | American Pipe tolling applies to absent class members, not to state-law tolling in CAFA/diversity cases. | American Pipe tolling does not toll the state-law claims in this action. |
| Borrowing statute and tolling for nonresidents (NY CPLR 202) across states? | Nonresidents’ claims tolled by 205(a) and by foreign tolling rules (CA/TX). | Nonresidents’ tolling governed by their home jurisdictions; NY borrowing statute requires shorter tolling. | Gutierrez (CA) and Vincent (TX) barred; resident Garridos tolled under 205(a). |
| Rule 25(c) substitution to toll Vincent I against Barclays/Ocwen? | Rule 25(c) allows substitution of successors-in-interest to trigger tolling. | Barclays/Ocwen were not parties in Vincent I; Rule 25(c) cannot retroactively join them for tolling. | Barclays and Ocwen claims dismissed; no tolling via Rule 25(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (tolls for absent class members; class action tolling principles)
- Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983) (class-action tolling principles and remedies under tolling statutes)
- George v. Mt. Sinai Hosp., 417 N.Y.S.2d 231 (1979) (policy behind CPLR 205(a) amendment; second opportunities to sue)
- Diffley v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 921 F.2d 421 (2d Cir.1990) (borrowing statute application in tolling analysis)
- Global Fin. Corp. v. Triarc Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 525 (1999) (borrowing statute: apply shorter tolling provisions of forum or injury location)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir.2008) (cross-jurisdictional tolling not adopted in California)