Jackling v. HSBC Bank, N.A. (USA) et al
Filing
100
DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the Decision and Order, Defendant's motions in limine, ECF Nos. 87 , 94 , and 97 are GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case. The trial set for September 3, 2019 is CANCELLED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 8/28/19. (GMS)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
WILLIAM T. JACKLING,
Plaintiff,
Case # 15-CV-6148-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
HSBC BANK USA, N.A. and
HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA),
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are three motions in limine filed by Defendant, HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
and HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) (collectively “HSBC”). ECF Nos. 87, 94, 97. For the
reasons discussed below, the motions in limine are GRANTED. And because this ruling prevents
Plaintiff from presenting evidence as to the only remaining issues in this case following summary
judgment, this case is DISMISSED.
BACKGROUND
On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff William T. Jackling brought this action against Defendant
HSBC asserting six claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a seventh claim for
breach of contract, an eighth claim for violation of the Truth in Lending Act, and a ninth claim
under the Home Affordable Modification Program. ECF No. 1. Jackling claimed that HSBC
inaccurately reported delinquencies on his mortgage payments, failed to reasonably investigate its
reporting of those payments in response to two credit report disputes that he lodged in December
2014 and January 2015, and caused him to suffer economic and emotional damages.
1
On January 10, 2019, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of HSBC on
Jackling’s first, second, third, fourth, seventh, eighth, and ninth claims and denied summary
judgment as to two limited issues within Jackling’s fifth and sixth claims: (1) whether, in response
to Jackling’s December 2014 and January 2015 credit report disputes, HSBC reasonably
investigated the accuracy of its reporting of certain mortgage modification payments Jackling
made in 2011, and (2) whether Jackling suffered economic damages in the form of credit denials
from Dorschel Toyota and Cortese Ford due to HSBC’s reporting and investigation of those
payments. ECF No. 74.
On May 24, 2019, the Court set a trial date of September 3, 2019 and set a pretrial
conference for August 2, 2019. ECF No. 80. The Pretrial Order required the parties to submit,
among other things, a witness list, exhibit list, proposed jury instructions, and a statement of
damages at least two weeks before the pretrial conference, i.e. by July 19, 2019. Id.
Jackling failed to file any pretrial materials by July 19. Consequently, on July 23, 2019,
HSBC moved to dismiss for lack of prosecution and failure to obey court orders. ECF No. 85.
The Court denied HSBC’s motion to dismiss but ordered Jackling to file his pretrial materials by
July 26, 2019 and warned him that failure to do so may result in dismissal or other sanctions. ECF
No. 86.
On July 26, Jackling filed a witness list and voir dire information, but did not file an exhibit
list, proposed jury instructions, or a statement of damages. ECF Nos. 88, 89, 90.1 The same day,
HSBC filed a motion in limine. ECF No. 87 (“First Motion in Limine”). The First Motion in
Limine sought to exclude evidence related to (1) Jackling’s claim that HSBC agreed not to report
delinquent payments during a forbearance period Jackling had entered into regarding his mortgage
1
To date, Jackling has not filed proposed jury instructions or a statement of damages.
2
payments, as the Court rejected that argument on summary judgment; (2) the credit denial from
Cortese Ford, as Jackling had not identified any witnesses to testify to those matters or authenticate
the Cortese credit denial letters he had submitted on summary judgment; and (3) the credit denial
by Dorschel Toyota, as Dorschel had denied Jackling credit before he lodged his credit report
disputes, and thus HSBC’s investigation of those disputes could not have caused Jackling’s
damages.
At the August 2, 2019 pretrial conference, the Court warned Jackling that granting HSBC’s
First Motion in Limine would result in the dismissal of his case because it would preclude him
from introducing evidence on the only issues that survived summary judgment. Jackling’s counsel
indicated his understanding of this consequence and asked permission to call additional witnesses
not disclosed on his witness list in order to authenticate the credit denial letters. The Court ordered
Jackling to file his complete witness and exhibit list by August 15, 2019 and to respond to HSBC’s
First Motion in Limine by August 16, 2019. ECF No. 92. The Court also ordered both parties to
submit additional briefing regarding the relevance and admissibility of Jackling’s existing
proposed witnesses by August 16, 2019. ECF No. 92, 93.
On August 15, 2019, Jackling filed a response to HSBC’s First Motion in Limine and a
Notice of Expert Testimony, but no witness or exhibit list. ECF No. 95. Attached to Jackling’s
response was a letter advising the Court that he would not be able to file the other materials by the
August 16 deadline and requesting a week’s extension of time and an adjournment of trial if
necessary. ECF No. 95 at 6. The Court granted an extension until August 19 and warned Jackling
that the trial would not be adjourned. ECF No. 96.
Additionally, HSBC filed a Second Motion in Limine seeking to preclude Jackling from
submitting evidence related to the Dorschel and Cortese denial letters, evidence related to matters
3
already decided on summary judgment, and testimony from all of the witnesses on his witness list
(except Jackling himself). ECF No. 94.
On August 19, 2019, Jackling submitted a letter and binder to HSBC and to the Court
containing exhibits and some other documents, but omitting a complete witness list, proposed jury
instructions, or Jackling’s itemization of damages.2
On August 20, 2019, HSBC filed a letter-motion for an order precluding Jackling from
calling any witness not already disclosed, from offering any exhibits, and denying any further
extensions of time. ECF No. 97 (from now on referred to as the “Third Motion in Limine”).
The Court now turns to its analysis of HSBC’s three motions in limine.
DISCUSSION
Because some of the issues in HSBC’s motions in limine overlap, the Court analyzes them
issues by issue rather than motion by motion.
I.
Jackling is Precluded from Introducing Evidence Related to the Dorschel Toyota
Credit Denial
In its First Motion in Limine, HSBC argues that Jackling should be precluded from
introducing evidence on damages related to the Dorschel Toyota credit denial because Dorschel
denied him credit in September 2014, before Jackling lodged his December 2014 and January 2015
credit report disputes. Thus, HSBC’s investigation of those two disputes could not have caused
Dorschel’s denial of credit and the evidence of that credit denial is irrelevant to this case. See ECF
No. 87-6 at 8-10.
The Court agrees. “[T]he duty to investigate a credit dispute is triggered only upon notice
of the dispute from a consumer reporting agency.” Nguyen v. Ridgewood Sav. Bank, 66 F. Supp.
3d 299, 305 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); see also Casella v. Equifax Credit Info. Serv., 56 F.3d 469, 473 (2d
2
The contents of the binder were filed on August 22, 2019 at ECF No. 98.
4
Cir. 1995) (holding that damages occurring prior to appellant notifying credit reporting agencies
of inaccurate credit information “cannot be compensable as ‘actual damages’ for a violation of the
FCRA”); Whelan v. Trans Union Credit Reporting Agency, 862 F. Supp. 824, 830 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)
(granting summary judgment to defendant where plaintiff failed to present evidence that the credit
reporting agency had been notified of inaccuracies on credit report prior to plaintiff’s alleged
damages). HSBC’s motion in limine on this issue is therefore GRANTED.
II.
Jackling is Precluded from Introducing Evidence Related to the Cortese Ford Credit
Denial
On summary judgment, Jackling submitted two3 credit denial letters related to Cortese
Ford: one from The Summit Federal Credit Union, ECF No. 69-19 at 2, and one from TD Auto
Finance. ECF No. 69-20 at 2. HSBC objected to the Court’s consideration of these letters on
summary judgment as hearsay, but the Court, in its discretion, considered them based on the
possibility that Jackling could authenticate them at trial. ECF No. 74 at 13-14.
However, Jackling has failed to disclose any witnesses who could authenticate and lay the
foundation for the admission of these letters or otherwise testify regarding the Cortese credit
denials. Pursuant to the Court’s Pretrial Order, Jackling’s witness list was due by July 19, 2019.
ECF No. 80. Jackling missed that deadline and the Court gave him until July 26, 2019. ECF No.
86. While Jackling filed a witness list on that date, none of the witnesses are from Cortese Ford
or the lenders related to his Cortese credit applications.
3
Jackling also submitted a third letter from Fifth Third Bank sent in March 2015 denying credit pursuant to an
application from Valenti Ford in Mystic, Connecticut. ECF No. 69-21 at 2. In his summary judgment response,
Jackling briefly mentioned this letter in connection with the Cortese Ford credit application, indicating that Cortese
sent his application to five different banks. ECF No. 69 at 9. He also testified that he did not recall applying for
credit with Valenti Ford and that he thought the Valenti application was connected to Cortese. ECF No. 87-2 at 26.
HSBC’s arguments as to the Cortese denial letters also apply to the Valenti denial letter.
5
At the August 2, 2019 pretrial conference, Jackling asked the Court for permission to call
additional witnesses not disclosed on his July 26, 2019 witness list. The Court gave Jackling until
August 15, 2019 to file his complete witness list. ECF No. 92. Jackling missed that deadline. On
August 22, 2019, Jackling filed a witness list, but it merely states that “if necessary” Jackling will
produce “representatives” from Cortese Ford and Summit Federal Credit Union. ECF No. 98 at
4.
This is insufficient. Even before the Court issued its Pretrial Order, during the discovery
phase of this case, witness disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) were
due by July 10, 2015. ECF No. 14. An amended scheduling order provided that all factual
discovery was to be completed by September 30, 2016. ECF No. 16. Even if Jackling was unable
to identify all of his witnesses during discovery, he was under a continuing obligation to update
his disclosures as information became available. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1). The exercise of due
diligence would have enabled Jackling to identify his witnesses long before the eve of trial.
Accordingly, because Jackling failed to timely identify any witnesses related to the Cortese
Ford credit denial, he is precluded from calling such witnesses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (“If
a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party
is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or
at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.”); see also Sterling-Kates
Props. Joint Venture v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 398, 400 (Cl. Ct. 1983) (“The customary, and by
no means unreasonable, sanction for such an omission is to provide that the party is prohibited
from introducing at trial any evidence of which it failed to provide notice through the required
pretrial submission.”).
6
Without a proper witness, Jackling cannot authenticate or lay the foundation required to
admit the Cortese credit denial letters into evidence. The Court therefore GRANTS HSBC’s
motion in limine to preclude Jackling from introducing evidence as to the Cortese credit denial.
III.
Jackling is precluded from Calling His Remaining Listed Witnesses
Jackling’s witness lists include several witnesses whose proposed testimony would be
irrelevant to the limited issues that survived summary judgment. HSBC moves in limine to
preclude the testimony related to these issues. ECF No. 94.
First, HSBC moves to preclude Jackling from calling Sheila Ferguson and Janet Pyzer
Young, both former HSBC employees, who would testify that that all “closing documents” had to
be signed by an authorized HSBC representative. ECF No. 98 at 3-4. However, none of the
remaining issues for trial have anything to do with closing documents. To the extent that Jackling
attempts to introduce these witnesses to discuss the execution of a forbearance agreement that
Jackling entered into regarding his mortgage payments, the Court already disposed of this issue on
summary judgment. See Morales v. N.Y.S. Dep’t. of Labor, Div. of Emp’t Servs., 530 F. App’x.
13, 15 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order) (affirming district court’s exclusion of evidence related to
a claim that “had already been dismissed at summary judgment”).
Second, HSBC moves to preclude Jackling from calling his former attorney, David M.
Kaplan, as a witness. ECF No. 94-3 at 13. Jackling seeks to elicit from Kaplan evidence regarding
settlement negotiations with HSBC. ECF Nos. 88, 91 at 3, 98 at 4. Kaplan prepared a settlement
report for Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson in 2017. ECF No. 91 at 13-16. The settlement
report references issues that were disposed of on summary judgment and does not include
substantive information as to HSBC’s investigations or any information regarding the Dorschel or
7
Cortese credit denials. The report mainly summarizes why Jackling was never delinquent in his
mortgage payments and HSBC’s admission of this.
Kaplan’s testimony would be irrelevant and inadmissible. He does not have personal
knowledge of the facts underlying Jackling’s claims or damages. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Further,
under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, evidence relating to settlement negotiations is inadmissible
to "to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior
inconsistent statement or a contradiction." Fed. R. Evid. 408(a). While evidence regarding
settlement negotiations may be used for other purposes, such as to prove bias, negate a contention
of undue delay, or prove an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution, Fed. R. Evid.
408(b), Jackling has not argued that Kaplan’s testimony would serve these or any other permissible
purposes.
Third, HSBC moves to preclude Jackling from calling Jules Steele,4 who Jackling
belatedly designated as an expert. See ECF Nos. 91 (listing Steele as a witness but not an expert);
98 at 2 (designating Steele as an expert). Jackling seeks to elicit testimony regarding the effect a
person’s credit score has on his ability to obtain home and auto insurance and how a credit score
can affect insurance rates. This testimony would also be irrelevant to the issues remaining after
summary judgment, which have nothing to do with insurance.5
Accordingly, HSBC’s motion in limine is GRANTED as to Sheila Ferguson, Janet Pyzer
Young, David M. Kaplan, and Jules Steele.
Jackling’s first witness list (ECF No. 84-1) lists “Jules Steele,” while his second witness list and notice of expert
testimony (ECF Nos. 98 and 95) list “Joel Steele.”
4
5
In his complaint , Jackling listed eight occasions on which he was denied credit, including a denial of insurance from
AllState. ECF No. 37 at 8 ¶ 32. However, Jackling did not mention insurance damages on summary judgment except
to vaguely claim that he was “denied credit, loans, or insurance coverage.” ECF No. 69 at 7. He provided no evidence
as to insurance related damages. Thus, as noted, the only issues surviving summary judgment related to the Dorschel
and Cortese credit denials.
8
IV.
This Action is Dismissed
As noted above, pursuant to the Court’s summary judgment order, ECF No. 74, trial in this
case was limited to two issues: (1) whether, in response to Jackling’s December 2014 and January
2015 credit report disputes, HSBC reasonably investigated the accuracy of its reporting of certain
mortgage modification payments Jackling made in 2011, and (2) whether (and the extent to which)
Jackling suffered economic damages in the form of credit denials from Dorschel Toyota and
Cortese Ford due to HSBC’s reporting and investigation of those payments. ECF No. 74. Because,
based upon the above rulings, Jackling is unable to present evidence as to these issues at trial, this
action is DISMISSED.
To the extent that this dismissal could be considered a sanction under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(C), 37(b)(2)(A)(v), or 41(b), the Court discusses the factors required to
dismiss an action for failure to comply with court orders.
The same standards govern dismissal under Rules 16(f) and 37(b): the Court may dismiss
an action if “(1) the party has demonstrated willfulness, bad faith or fault, (2) less drastic sanctions
will not work, and (3) the party has been warned of the risk of dismissal for failure to comply with
court orders.” McNair v. Ponte, No. 16-CV-1722 (LAP), 2019 WL 1428349, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
29, 2019) (quoting Camara v. Daise, No. 98 CIV 808 RMB RLE, 2001 WL 263006, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2001)).
Further, courts have looked to the factors required for dismissal under Rule 41(b) when
analyzing dismissal under Rule 37(b) and have found the factors to be similar. Id. The Rule 41(b)
factors are:
(1) the duration of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court order, (2)
whether plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in
dismissal, (3) whether the defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further
delay in the proceedings, (4) a balancing of the court’s interest in managing
9
its docket with the plaintiff’s interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard,
and (5) whether the judge has adequately considered a sanction less drastic
than dismissal.
McNair, 2019 WL 1428349, at *6 (quoting Dones v. Smalls, No. 17-CV-6038 (JPO), 2018 WL
4211314, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2018)). None of the factors are dispositive. Id.
Here, the Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
1. Length of Noncompliance and Willfulness
Jackling has failed to identify witnesses related to the Cortese Ford credit denials since
2015 when his initial Rule 26 disclosures were due. However, even if the Court construes the
disclosure deadline to be the more recent date of July 19, 2019 as set forth in the Pretrial Order,
Jackling failed to notify HSBC and the Court that he would be calling witnesses related to the
Cortese denial until August 20, 2019, and even then, he failed to specifically identify the witnesses.
Although the length of time between July 19 and August 20 is not particularly long, given the
imminence of trial and the repeated Court orders for a complete witness list, this factor supports
dismissal.
The noncompliance also appears to be willful. HSBC has repeatedly requested that
Jackling identify his exhibits and witnesses and at the August 2, 2019 pretrial conference, the
parties and the Court discussed the need for all witnesses to be disclosed in advance of trial. The
Court gave Jackling until August 15, 2019 to file a complete witness list and he failed to comply.
On August 15, Jackling requested a week’s extension of time to file his witness list and
other pretrial materials and an adjournment of trial if necessary. ECF No. 95 at 6. The Court
granted an extension of time until August 19 and indicated that the trial would not be adjourned.
ECF No. 96. Jackling nevertheless failed to file his materials by August 19 and when he did, he
failed to specifically identify the Cortese witnesses. Accordingly, this factor favors dismissal.
10
2. Notice
Jackling has been put on notice that the failure to file his witness list and other pretrial
materials could result in dismissal. On July 23, 2019, HSBC moved for dismissal of the action for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Pretrial Order pursuant to Rules 16(f) and 41(b).
ECF No. 85. Although the Court denied the motion and gave Jackling until July 26, 2019 to file
his pretrial materials, it warned him that “failure to do so may result in dismissal or other
sanctions.” ECF No. 86.
Then, at the August 2, 2019 pretrial conference, the Court warned Jackling that granting
HSBC’s motion in limine would result in dismissal because it would preclude Jackling from
introducing evidence as to his only remaining claims. Jackling has still failed to identify witnesses
that would allow for the introduction of evidence as to the Cortese Ford credit denials.
Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
3. Prejudice to HSBC
HSBC has consistently asserted that it is prejudiced by Jackling’s failure to file his pretrial
materials.
In its motion to dismiss, HSBC argued that Jackling’s failure to timely file his pretrial
papers prejudiced HSBC’s ability to prepare for trial because it could not prepare for crossexamination of unidentified witnesses or file appropriate motions in limine. ECF No. 85-2 at 8.
In its Second Motion in Limine, HSBC argued that Jackling should be precluded from
offering any evidence related to the Cortese credit denial because he failed to disclose any
witnesses who could authenticate or lay the foundation for Jackling’s proffered credit denial
letters. ECF No. 94-3 at 11-13.
11
Finally, in its Third Motion in Limine, HSBC outlined Jackling’s repeated delays in filing
his pretrial papers and producing a complete witness list and again lamented its inability to prepare
for trial without that information. It requested an order denying any further extensions of time to
file complete pretrial documents, precluding Jackling from calling any witnesses other than those
already disclosed in his submissions, and dismissing the action.
The Court agrees that HSBC has been prejudiced.
The purpose of Rule 26 disclosures and discovery in general as well the filing of
the joint trial memorandum is to provide notice to each party of the individuals who
have relevant information and to enable both sides to adequately prepare for trial.
Here, it would be prejudicial to Defendant to allow an individual who has not been
previously identified to testify at trial without affording the Defendant at least an
opportunity to depose that individual prior to trial.
Marceline v. Delgado, No. 3:09CV1591 VLB, 2012 WL 517301, at *5 (D. Conn. Feb. 16, 2012)
(ordering Plaintiffs to “identify the unnamed witness at least one month prior to trial to afford
Defendant the opportunity to depose the individual” and warning that failure to do so could result
in preclusion of that testimony at trial).
Similarly, here, Jackling’s failure to identify his witnesses hampers HSBC’s ability to
prepare for trial. This factor also supports dismissal.
4. Balancing of Interests
“The United States District Court for the Western District of New York is a heavily
congested court with a large backlog of cases.” Oliver v. Grebleski, No. 17-CV-292(LJV), 2019
WL 1048295, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2019), Report and Recommendation adopted, 2019 WL
1050013 (Mar. 5, 2019); Agosto v. Fischer, No. 16-CV-00824A(F), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54602,
at *15-16 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019) (“Insofar as the court must attempt to strike a balance between
alleviating court congestion and protecting Plaintiff’s right to due process and a fair chance to be
12
heard, the court takes judicial notice that the Western District of New York is one of the most
congested district courts in the country.”).
Further, this case has been pending since 2015, giving Jackling years to identify his trial
witnesses. The Court issued its summary judgment order in January 2019 and set a status
conference for February 2019 to set a trial date.
ECF No. 75.
The Court granted three
adjournments of the pretrial conference to allow the parties to pursue settlement. ECF Nos. 76,
77, 79. The Court has since warned Jackling that the trial would not be adjourned. ECF No. 96.
This Court already has trials scheduled into the spring of 2020.
While the Court recognizes Jackling’s right to be heard, he has had ample opportunity to
prepare for trial and submit his pretrial documents. Moreover, Jackling’s deposition testimony,
taken after summary judgment was granted, proves that he suffered no damages as a result of the
Cortese denial. ECF No. 87-6 at 16. Specifically, Jackling testified that he was looking for a Ford
Fusion but decided not to purchase one from Cortese Ford because Cortese was unable to provide
him with a Fusion that had properly functioning driver’s assistance technology. ECF No. 87-2 at
21-24. Jackling ultimately purchased a Ford Fusion from Genesee Ford and was able to obtain
financing. ECF No. 87-4 at 3. Thus, even if the Court permitted Jackling to introduce evidence
regarding the Cortese denial letters, he would still be unable to prove that he suffered damages.
Accordingly, this factor favors dismissal.
5. Alternative Remedies
The Court finds that no less severe remedy is available. Dismissal here is more a function
of Jackling’s inability to present evidence as to his only remaining claims than it is a sanction. The
only way that Jackling would be able to fairly present witnesses as to the Cortese Ford credit
denials would be for the Court to grant an adjournment to permit those witnesses to be identified
13
and deposed by HSBC if necessary. But for the reasons discussed above as to the balancing of
interests—and because Jackling has not even identified the witnesses—adjournment of the trial is
not appropriate. This factor also favors dismissal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, HSBC’s motions in limine (ECF Nos. 87, 94, 97) are
GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in
favor of Defendant HSBC and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2019
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
14
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?