Agomuoh et al v. The PNC Financial Services Group Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/5/2017. (c/m 7/5/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TilE J)JSTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case No.: G.IH-16-1939
THE PNC FINANCIAL
GROUP, t'f :II.,
Plaintiffs Emmanuel Agomuoh and Nene Ross initiated this pro.l'e action against
Defendants the PNC Financial Services Group ("PNC"). the Federal Ilome Loan Mortgage
Corporation ("'Freddie Mac"). and the Alba Law Group. P.A. (collectively. "Defendants")
alleging various statutory and common law claims relating to Plaintiffs' home m0l1gage loan.
Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider its Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ("Opinion"). No hearing is necessary. See
Loc. R. 105.6. For the tiJllowing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 14. is
The background facts of this case were fully set t()rth in the Opinion. ECF No. 12 at 1-5.1
In the Complaint. Plaintiffs alleged state law claims of negligence. l('audulent concealment. civil
conspiracy. as well as statutory violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. 12
1 Pin cites to doculllents tiled (lilthe Court"s electronic filing system (Crv1/ECF) refer to the page Ilumbers gCllcmlcd
by that system.
2601 elself. ("'RESPA").
14-201 el self. ("'MCDCA "). the Maryland
13-301 else,!- ("MCPA"'J.
and the Fair Debt Collection
Act. Md. Code Com.
Act. Md. Code Com.
Practices Act. 15 U.S.c.
se,f. ("'FDCI' A"). See ECF NO.1. The C01ll1 assessed
each of Plaintiffs'
holding that Plaintiffs
cause of action. ECF No. 12 at 15-26.
had failed to state a cognizable
Alier the entry of judgment.
moved fi)r reconsideration.
arguing. illler alia. that
"do not owe a debt to PNC and thus there existed no valid right for [PNCI to collect the
and the Court "impermissibly"
PNC was both the owner and holder of the Note:'
and applied the pleading
as against Alba Law Group as Substitute
fix the existence
failed to allege a dual-tracking
ECF No. 15. Because Plaintiffs
of a legal duty
no basis to invoke the
the Motion shall be denied.
Rule 59( e) allows a party to Ii Ie a motion to alter or amend a judgment
days alier the entry of the judgment.
2016 WL 3430673.
burden of unnecessary
at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 16. 2016). One purpose of Rule 59(e) is to
(4th Cir. 1998). However.
no later than 28
red. R. Civ. P. 59(e): see also Ford \'. Vlliled Slales. No.
"permit a district court to correct its own errors. 'sparing
id at II. and the Court "misapprehended
remedy of reconsideration.
of a state law negligence
other asserted grounds
in finding that Plaintiffs
RESPA. id at 15-18. Defendants
ECF No. 14 at 3-8 ... the Court has
id at 9 ... the Court o\'erlooked
nine claims. ultimately
the parties and the appellate coul1s the
.... ['ae. IllS. Co.
Am. Nal. Fire
Co.. 148 F.3d
alier its entry is an
extraordinary rcmcdy which should bc uscd sparingly:' /'ac Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403 (citation
omittcd). A Rulc 59(c) motion "may not bc uscd to rclitigate old matters. or to raisc argumcnts
or prcscnt evidcncc that could havc been raised prior to thc cntry of judgment:'
omittcd). "[Mjere disagreement" with thc court's ruling docs not support a motion to altcr or
amend thc judgmcnt. Ilutchinson
Staton, 994 F.2d 1076. 1082 (4th Cir. 1993). Such
Iimitations are ncccssary becausc ,,[w Jere it othcrwise. thcn there would be no conclusion to
motions practice. cach motion bccoming nothing more than the latcst installment in a potentially
endless serial that would exhaust the resourccs of thc parties and the court-not
to mcntion its
patience:' /'inney \'. Nokia. Inc.. 402 F.3d 430. 453 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting /'ol/er
F.R.D. 550. 553 (D. Md. 2001 )).
The Fourth Circuit recognizes only threc grounds on which a court may alter or amend an
earlier judgment: ..( I) to accommodatc an intervcning change in controlling law: (2) to account
for new cvidcnce not a\'ailable at trial: or (3) to correct a c1car error of law or prevent manifest
injustice:' United States ex rei. Becker \'. WestinKhouse Sa\,((III/lihRh'er Co .. 305 F,3d 284. 290
(4th Cir. 2002) (citing I'(/c. Ins. CO. I'. Alii. Nal 'I Fire Ins. Co .. 148 F.3d 396.403 (4th Cir.
1998)), "Clcar error or manifest injustice occurs where a court 'has patently misundcrstood a
party. or has madc a decision outside the adversarial issues prescntcd to thc Court by thc parties.
or has madc an crror not of rcasoning but of apprehcnsion ' , ,... WaKner
Warden. No. ELiI.
14.791. 2016 WL 1169937. at *3 (D. Md, Mar. 24. 2(16) (quoting KinK v. McFadden. 2015 WL
4937292. at *2 (D.S.C. August 18,2015)); see also TFWS. Inc.
Franchot. 572 F,3d 186. 194
(4th Cir. 2009) ("A prior decision does not quality for this third exception by bcingjust maybc or
probably wrong: it must strikc us as wrong with the fi)rce of a fivc.week.old. unrcli'igerated dead
fish,") (internal citations and altcrations omitted),
In the Motion for Reconsideration.
Plaintiff:, do not allege any intervening
law. nor do they contend that new evidence
that "the Court committed
or holder of their loan .. ,'. ECF No. 14 at I. Contrary
of the Notc and standing.
that the MCDCA.
much less identilya
did not owe tort duties to Plaintiffs.
duty to their customers,"
a tort duty). Moreover.
of their negligence
claims also lili!. In the
See ECI' No. 12 at 15-16: Spau/din}!. \'. Wells
and absent speeial circumstances.
a private right of action under the llome Affordable
claims lailed as a matter of law because
the Court linmd that Plaintiffs
RESPA. See ECI' No. 12 at 15-16.
claims. See ECF No. 12 at 21-26.
Far}!.oBank. NA .. 714 F.3d 769. 778-79 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that "[blanks
bave a liduciary
do not address their pleading deficiencies.
"clear error of law" warranting
the Court linmd Plaintiffs'
that PNC was not the owncr
See ECF No. 12 at 13-15. Rather. the Court Itmnd
of the respective
Motion for Reconsideration.
a hotly disputed
MCPA. and FDCPA claims failed as a matter of law because Plaintiffs
lailed to plead the requisite elements
stated that it was not granting the motion to dismiss based on PNes
has come to light. Rather. Plaintiffs assert
error. in that it proceeded
lactual issuc that was central to the allegations
li'om raising state law c1aims2
typically do not
lailed to allege an actionable
that the lack of
is neither hclpltil to their claims. nor proper
, Plaintiff, cite .~i","ldillg \'. lI'ells Fargo Balik. N ..I.. 714 F.3d 769. 776. n.4 (4th Cir. 2013) for this proposition. The
Spaulding court clearly rejected the argulllent that banks owe fiduciary duties to their customers absent special
circumstances. The court further reasoned that even assuming that banks owe customers a duty to process HAJ'vlP
applications wilh reasonable carc. "mere disagreement \l.:jth ho\v [the bankl conducted the application process does
not give [plaintiffs] enforceable rights'" 1<1.fl.5. Further. as was the case in Spaulding. Plaintiffs here have failed to
allege a breach in the standard of care attributable to Defendants. See id n.4.
upon a motion to reconsider. See Pac. Ins. Co.
Am. Nal. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396.404 (4th
Cir. 1998) (noting that "Rule 59(e) may not be used to raise new arguments or present novel
legal theories that could have been raised prior to judgment."). Indeed, nothing in Plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration establishes a clear error of law in the Court's previous dismissal of
Plaintiffs' negligence claims. To the extent that Plaintiffs further object to the Court's findings
on the RESPA claim regarding "dual-tracking:" Plaintiffs merely disagree with the Court. See
ECF No. 14 at 16-18.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs" Motion for Reconsideration is denied. A separate
Order shall issue.
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge
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?