Adrian Pintea, et al v. Matthew Gurvey, et al
Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. While defense counsel has requested sanctions under Rule 38 or 28 U.S.C. 1927, we decline to issue them. Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge; Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge and Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge. [6853734-1]  [16-4173]
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued April 13, 2017
Decided July 12, 2017
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
ADRIAN PINTEA, et al.,
MATTHEW ERIC GURVEY, et al.,
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
Thomas M. Durkin,
O R D E R
Adrian and Marinela Pintea are first‐generation immigrants of Romanian origin
who owned their primary residence in Chicago and a smaller rental property nearby.
At some point they defaulted on their mortgage and both properties fell into
foreclosure. As is the case for many immigrants, the Pinteas sought legal help in the
community and were quickly directed to Joseph Varan, a Romanian‐speaking realtor.
After explaining their situation, Varan directed the two to defendant Matthew Gurvey,
an attorney. According to the complaint, Gurvey recommended an arrangement
whereby the Pinteas would transfer title to the mortgaged property in order to stay
foreclosure proceedings, and they would pay Gurvey a monthly fee.
The parties agree that the Pinteas transferred the properties to Gurvey, that they
paid a few months’ fees, and that they then became dissatisfied and demanded that
Gurvey terminate the arrangement. While unclear in the record, at oral argument
plaintiffs’ counsel made clear that the rental property was returned to the Pinteas, and
that they reside there now. Plaintiffs’ counsel was unclear, but by implication conceded
at oral argument that the primary residence was also returned to the Pinteas, but was
eventually lost at foreclosure.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in district court on June 8, 2016, and were (contrary to
representations at oral argument) granted leave to amend their complaint, which was
filed on September 28, 2016. The amended complaint alleged state law attorney
malpractice and breach of contract, as well as two federal causes of action: violation of
the Fair Housing Act under 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, 3604, and 3605, and violations of the
“Civil Rights Act of 866” [sic], 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982. In essence, the plaintiffs
alleged that Varan and Gurvey sought to defraud them because they were Romanian,
and Romanians are allegedly easy marks. The case was dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) on November 22, 2016. As noted by the district judge: “[A]ll Plaintiffs’
allegations show [are possible Illinois state law claims…] not a federal discrimination
case under either the Fair Housing Act or §§ 1981 or 1982.” Pintea v. Varan, No. 16‐cv‐
05990, slip op. at 24 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2016). Because we agree with the district court’s
reasoning, we AFFIRM the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ federal law claims with prejudice
and the state law claims without prejudice.
In its opinion, the district court found numerous independent bases for
dismissing the suit against both the realtor, Varan, and the lawyer, Gurvey. We need
only choose one, and it is fatal to all of the federal discrimination claims. As properly
noted by the district court, we “need not accept a conclusory allegation of motive or
intent at face value in this case because other more specific facts alleged in the
complaint show that Plaintiffs’ claim is really that their victimization was not because of
an animus against their country of origin but instead because of Defendants’ belief that
their country of origin made them susceptible to being victimized … There is simply no
plausible reason to believe that, assuming Defendants are guilty of the scheme to
defraud alleged, they would forgo victimizing non‐Romanians who were similarly
susceptible to their fraudulent scheme. An ‘equal opportunity’ victimizer, whatever else
he may be charged with, is not subject to liability for discrimination.”, slip op. at 22–23.
Reviewing the plaintiffs’ factual allegations and all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the Pinteas, we find that dismissal of their federal law claims
was proper. Even at oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel was left with the bare allegation
of “animus” towards Eastern Europeans (a broader class than was argued below) with
no factual support. We can point to no fact in the record which suggests anything
approaching actionable discrimination. Plaintiffs, having four bites at the apple (a
complaint, an amended complaint, a reply to a motion to dismiss, and an appeal),
continue to try to convert a state law fraud claim into a federal discrimination case
based purely upon say‐so.
Finally, while defense counsel has requested sanctions under Rule 38 or 28 U.S.C.
§ 1927, we decline to issue them. The defendants are understandably upset at the
alleged misrepresentations included in the complaint, but the appropriate court for
sifting through that inquiry is the district court. Indeed, in the judgment below, the
district court explicitly noted, for example, that plaintiffs’ counsel alleged both that
Varan failed to return the Pinteas’ property and that he did, in fact, return it: such a
material falsehood could give rise to sanctions, but if the district judge declined to
impose them, we will also decline.
Defense counsel alleges that plaintiffs’ counsel has numerous filings making
similar allegations against other defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel does have an online
presence which suggests as much. However, this is the first of her cases before this
court. The appeal of the dismissal is frivolous and potentially sanctionable, and a
finding of subjective bad faith is not necessary to ordering sanctions under either Rule
38 or § 1927. At this point we are not inclined to award sanctions, but we simply take
this opportunity to put counsel for the Pinteas, Kelli Dudley, on notice. Quite apart
from the legal consequences, allegations of racial discrimination today carry with them
a host of social disabilities imposed on the accused. These allegations should not be
made lightly—especially with no factual basis.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?