Youkelsone v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
910 F. Supp. 2d 213
D.D.C.2012Background
- Ms. Youkelsone owned a two-family Brooklyn residence with a Note and Mortgage from GFI Mortgage, later assigned through Fleet and WaMu to WaMu and then to Fannie Mae.
- Fannie Mae pursued foreclosure beginning in 2001; WaMu allegedly assisted and continued servicing the loan after assignment to Fannie Mae, creating confusion over who acted and when.
- Foreclosure litigation occurred in New York state court; Youkelsone contends WaMu and Fannie Mae engaged in a scheme to misappropriate equity and interfere with her rights, including bankruptcy proceedings.
- Youkelsone filed multiple related suits and a Chapter 13 petition in 2003, which was dismissed; she alleges delayed payoff statements and improper charges, causing substantial damages by 2004.
- In 2009 she filed this action in the D.D.C. against FDIC-Receiver (as WaMu’s successor) asserting thirteen counts; FDIC-Receiver moved to dismiss.
- The court concludes all claims are time-barred under District of Columbia limitations, with TILA and RICO claims also untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for statute of limitations | New York law should apply for limitations. | DC limitations apply under FIRREA choice rules. | DC choice-of-law rules apply; three-year limits govern state-law claims. |
| Are state-law claims time-barred under DC three-year limit? | Claims timely under tolling theories. | Claims accrued by 2004; untimely after 3 years. | Counts I–V, VII–XI, XIII are time-barred; filed July 2009 outside three-year window. |
| timeliness of TILA claim (Count VI) | TILA claim timely under development of facts. | TILA claim subject to one-year limit from violation date. | TILA claim time-barred; violation occurred by Oct. 24, 2004, suit filed 2009. |
| timeliness of RICO claim (Count XII) | RICO should relate to ongoing injury and discovery. | Injury was known well before 2004; four-year limitation applies. | RICO claim time-barred; injury occurred well before 2004 and suit filed after four years. |
| Alternative tolling and preclusion defenses | Equitable tolling or tolling due to continuing conduct. | ||
| s | No tolling applies; NY tolling rules do not apply in DC court; collateral estoppel/preclusion apply. | No equitable tolling or tolling by NY rules; collateral estoppel/claim preclusion vindicated; amendment futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra International Banking Corp., 62 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Erie choice-of-law rule for FIRREA cases; apply DC choice-of-law rules)
- Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (Supreme Court 2000) (injury-discovery rule for accrual of claims under RICO framework)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (threadbare recitals insufficient; must plead plausible facts)
- Colbert v. Georgetown Univ., 641 A.2d 469 (D.C. 1994) (accrual when injury is readily determinable)
- Farris v. Compton, 652 A.2d 49 (D.C. 1994) (DC tolling and accrual principles for damages/causes of action)
- News World Commc’ns, Inc. v. Thompsen, 878 A.2d 1218 (D.C. 2005) (statutory interpretation and tolling considerations in DC)