Shahin v. PNC Bank et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER re 18 MOTION for Reargument filed by Mazen Shahin, Nina Shahin is DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 1/13/15. (ntl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MAZEN and NINA SHAHIN,
PNC BANK, N.A., et al.,
C.A. No. 13-1404-LPS
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument filed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (D.I. 18) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, Truth in Lending Act, and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. (D.I. 1)
On October 8, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim and denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. (D.I. 16; D.I. 17) (collectively, the
In the Opinion, the Court held: ( 1) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESP A")
does not provide a private right of action for failure to provide a Good Faith Estimate ("GFE") in
violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2604 (D.I. 16 at 3-4); (2) the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") claim was
time-barred by the statute oflimitations (id. at 4); (3) Plaintiffs failed to allege discriminatory
intent or effect in stating a claim under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") (id. at 5-6); and
(4) Plaintiffs failed to allege discriminatory intent or effect in their Equal Credit Opportunity Act
("ECOA'') claim. (Id. at 6) The Court also denied Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, finding: (1)
no basis for liability under the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct; (2) no basis
for Rule 11 sanctions; and (3) that the motion for sanctions was procedurally improper under
Rule 11. (Id. at 7)
Plaintiffs challenge each of the Court's holdings in their motion for reargument. With
respect to the RESP A claim, Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in finding that there was no
private right of action for failure to provide a GFE in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2604. (D.I. 18 at
2-3) With respect to the TILA claim, Plaintiffs argue that the claim is not time-barred because
the statute of limitations otherwise would have ended on a Saturday, and they filed their suit on
the following Monday, August 12, 2013, and further argue they provided a sufficient factual and
legal basis for their claim to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). (Id. at 3-5) With respect to the FHA and ECOA claims, Plaintiffs argue that
they pied a discriminatory intent or effect. (Id. at 5-6) Finally, with respect to the Motion for
Sanctions, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' conduct was sanctionable under the Delaware
Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 11.
Defendants respond that Plaintiffs' arguments are repetitions of those raised in opposition
to the Motion to Dismiss, which is an improper basis for reargument. (D.I. 19 at 3)
A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e), which is timely filed and challenges
the correctness of a previously entered order, is considered the "functional equivalent" of a
motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1.5. See Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, 2006
WL 155255, at *3 (D. Del. Jan. 20, 2006). Motions for reconsideration should be granted
sparingly and may not be used to rehash arguments which have already been briefed by the
parties and considered and decided by the court. See Karr v. Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087, 1090 (D.
Del. 1991); Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990). Such
motions are granted only if it appears that the court has patently misunderstood a party, has made
a decision outside of the adversarial issues presented by the parties, or has made an error not of
reasoning but of apprehension. See, e.g., Shering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293, 295
(D. Del. 1998); Brambles, 735 F. Supp. at 1240. A court may alter or amend the judgment if the
movant demonstrates at least one of the following: (1) a change in the controlling law;
(2) availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. See Max's Seafood Cafe by LouAnn, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Even when one or more of these conditions are
satisfied, the Court may deny the motion if it would not alter the outcome. See Becton Dickinson
& Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP, 2006 WL 890995, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2006); Brambles,
735 F. Supp. at 1240.
Plaintiffs' arguments with respect to the Motion for Sanctions and the RESP A, FHA, and
ECOA claims are repetitive of those previously considered and rejected, and thus provide no
basis for the Court to grant the motion for reargument. See Karr, 768 F. Supp. at 1090. With
respect to the TILA claim, Plaintiffs do identify a clear error of fact in the Court's Opinion. The
Court stated that Plaintiffs' claim was time-barred because the alleged course of conduct ended
on August 10, 2012, while the complaint was filed more than a year later, on August 12, 2013.
(See id at 4) As Plaintiffs have pointed out, August 10, 2013, which would otherwise be the end
of the limitations period, was a Saturday, so the statute of limitations did not end until the
following Monday, August 12, 2013. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(l)(c). This is the date that
Plaintiffs filed their TILA claim, so it was not time-barred.
However, Defendants presented an alternative ground for dismissal of Plaintiffs' TILA
claim, the other being the failure to adequately plead the elements of a claim on which relief may
be granted. (See D.I. 10 at 9) Plaintiffs allege that their application for a home equity loan,
which is the focus of their TILA claim, was denied. (D.I. 1 at 4-5) TILA only creates a potential
liability when a "person ... is obligated on a consumer lease or a consumer credit transaction."
15 U.S.C. § 163 l(a). Hence, in order to plead a cognizable claim under TILA, there must be (in
addition to other requirements) an obligation on a lease or credit transaction. See 15 U.S.C. §
1640(a). Taking as true Plaintiffs' allegation that their home equity loan application was denied,
Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts that could give rise to liability on behalf of Defendants on the
TILA claim. To the extent Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants' failure to provide a GFE
violated TILA, this is based on a provision of Regulation X, which is related to RESP A. See 24
C.F.R. § 3500-71(h) (2012) (citing 12 C.F.R. § 226.56). Plaintiffs' GFE contention is properly
seen as part of their RESPA claim (which alleged failure to provide a GFE pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
§ 2604), a claim for which there is no private right of action, as was explained in the Opinion.
See also Collins v. FMHA-USDA, 105 F.3d 1366, 1368 (10th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs'
Motion for Reargument Under Rule 59(e) (D.I. 18) is DENIED.
January 13, 2015
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?