LLANO FUNDING GROUP, LLC. v. LEVI
Filing
14
OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/8/15. (dc, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
LLANO FUNDING GROUP, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL LEVI,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 14-cv-7848 (SRC)
OPINION
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant
Samuel Levi (“Defendant”). Plaintiff Llano Funding Group, LLC (“Plaintiff”) opposes the
motion. The Court has considered the parties’ submissions and proceeds to rule without oral
argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss
the Complaint without prejudice.
I.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
In this case, the assignee of a property loan claims that an inaccurate appraisal of that
property constituted professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The Court takes
the following facts from the complaint and assumes them to be true for purposes of this motion.
Defendant is a real estate appraiser who conducted an appraisal (“the Appraisal”) of real
property located in Trenton, New Jersey (“the Property”) on an unspecified date. Defendant
appraised the Property at $87,000. Plaintiff claims that the Property’s true value was far less.
1
On the basis of the Appraisal, an entity called First Universal (“the Lender”) approved a
mortgage loan on the Property. Plaintiff contends that had Defendant accurately appraised the
Property, the Lender would not have approved the loan. On September 1, 2010, the Property
was foreclosed upon. The Lender did not recoup any amount of the loan.
Plaintiff is the Lender’s successor in interest. In February of 2014, Plaintiff discovered
alleged errors in the Appraisal. Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to over $107,669.00.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in this Court on December 17, 2014; it filed
an Amended Complaint on January 26, 2015. Plaintiff pleads two claims against Defendant: (1)
professional negligence; and (2) negligent misrepresentation. This Court has diversity
jurisdiction over the matter.
On May 18, 2015, Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). In support of the motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are timebarred and that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this lawsuit.
Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations did not begin
to run until Plaintiff discovered the appraisal errors at issue, which took place in February of
2014, and it contends that there was no reason to discover the errors earlier. Alternatively,
Plaintiff suggests that the statute of limitations defense cannot apply at this stage because
lateness is not apparent on the face of the pleadings.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Motions to Dismiss
A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) only if it states
“sufficient factual allegations, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
2
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554,
570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Following Iqbal and Twombly, the Third
Circuit has held that to prevent dismissal of a claim the complaint must show, through the facts
alleged, that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d
Cir. 2009). In other words, the facts alleged “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level[.]’” Eid v. Thompson, 740 F.3d 118, 122 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555).
While the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it
need not accept a “legal conclusion couched as factual allegation.” Baraka v. McGreevey, 481
F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2007); Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210-11; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679
(“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by
factual allegations.”). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, will not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In reviewing a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court may consider the allegations of the complaint, as well as
documents attached to or specifically referenced in the complaint, and matters of public record.
See Pittsburgh v. W. Penn Power Co., 147 F.3d 256, 259 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing 5A Charles Alan
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (2d ed.1990)).
When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court
must consider the complaint in its entirety, and the Court may also consider “documents
incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which the court may take judicial
notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, 551 U.S. 308, 322-23 (2007).
3
B. Timeliness of this Action
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s action is untimely. The Court agrees. Plaintiff asserts
that because the Complaint does not plead the date of the Appraisal, the Court cannot determine
that the claim is time-barred. Plaintiff alternatively asserts that the clock did not begin to run
until it discovered the alleged problems with the Appraisal. The Court recently rejected the same
two arguments as advanced by the same counsel who represents Plaintiff here. In First Mut.
Grp. v. Vazirani, No. 14-cv-6762 (SRC), 2015 WL 3385999 (D.N.J. May 26, 2015), the Court
dismissed a complaint that was based on an allegedly incorrect property appraisal which took
place on an unspecified date. For the reasons laid out in that Opinion, the Court will similarly
dismiss this action.
Plaintiff pleads in its Complaint and Amended Complaint that its claims are subject to
Florida’s four-year statute of limitations. See Docket Entry 1, Page 2, Par. 5; Docket Entry 4,
Page 2, Par. 5. Defendant agrees to this limitation. See Docket Entry 13, Page 5. Accepting the
parties’ stipulation, the Court examines when Plaintiff knew or should have known that it had
been harmed by the allegedly faulty appraisal. Because Plaintiff is an assignee to the Lender’s
rights on the underlying loan, the Court looks to whether the Lender or any of its prior assignees
had reason to know about this alleged harm. If the time-bar would have limited the Lender’s
ability to sue Defendant, so too will it now limit the Lender’s current assignee, Plaintiff. See
Animal Sci. Products, Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 34 F. Supp. 3d 465, 510 (D.N.J. 2014)
(McNulty, J.) (“It is elementary ancient law that an assignee never stands in any better position
than his assignor. He is subject to all the equities and burdens which attach to the property
assigned because he receives no more and can do no more than his assignor”) (quoting Int’l
Ribbon Mills, Ltd. v. Arjan Ribbons, Inc., 325 N.E.2d 137, 139 (N.Y. 1975)).
4
Dismissal can be based on a statute of limitations defense if “the complaint facially
shows noncompliance with the limitations period and the affirmative defense clearly appears on
the face of the pleading.” Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1385 (3d
Cir. 1994). Plaintiff did not plead the date of the Appraisal, but it did plead enough facts for this
Court to ascertain the relevant timeline. The Complaint makes clear that the Appraisal preceded
the Lender’s loan on the Property, as well as the subsequent foreclosure upon it. The Complaint
further pleads that the foreclosure took place on September 1, 2010. That event should have
alerted the Lender or its assignee that it had a possible claim against Defendant. Had the holder
of the loan -- and in whose shoes Plaintiff now stands -- exercised reasonable diligence, it would
have discovered the allegedly gross miscalculation of the Property’s value when that loan
defaulted. Defendant’s identity, moreover, would have been readily knowable at that time, as
Defendant allegedly issued the Appraisal report. Thus, even if this Court accepts the latest
possible discovery date that could be reasonable here -- September 1, 2010 -- the Complaint was
not filed until December 17, 2014, which is beyond the four-year period agreed to by the parties.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s action is untimely, and the
Court will accordingly grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. An appropriate Order will be filed.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
Dated: July 8, 2015
5
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?