Yuszczak et al v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc.
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 8 Motion for Summary Judgment. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 1/4/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
STEPHEN YUSZCZAK and
)
RITA YUSZCZAK,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 16-101 S
)
DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.,
)
ALIAS and JOHN DOE, ALIAS
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before
Judgment.
the
(ECF
Court
No.
8.)
is
Defendant’s
For
the
Motion
reasons
set
for
Summary
forth
below,
Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
Stephen and Rita Yuszczak (“Plaintiffs”) are residents of
Burrillville, Rhode Island. On May 14, 2008, Plaintiffs acquired
a
mortgage
loan
for
their
home
from
Seacoast
Mortgage
Corporation. That mortgage was subsequently transferred to DLJ
Mortgage Capital (“Defendant”), a Delaware Corporation, sometime
between July of 2014 and February of 2015. 1 On February 3, 2016,
1
There is a dispute between the parties as to when the
mortgage was officially acquired by Defendant. Defendant claims
to have acquired the mortgage on or about July 28, 2014. (Def.’s
Mot. for Summ. J. 1, ECF No. 8-1.) Plaintiffs claim that the
Plaintiffs
alleging
filed
that
a
Complaint
Defendant
in
failed
Rhode
to
Island
notify
Superior
Plaintiffs
Court
of
the
mortgage transfer as required under the Truth in Lending Act
(“TILA”). (ECF No. 1-1.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant failed to comply with the following TILA requirement:
not later than 30 days after the date on which a
mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or
assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the
new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the
borrower in writing of such transfer, including—
(A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new
creditor;
(B) the date of transfer;
(C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to
act on behalf of the new creditor;
(D) the location of the place where transfer of
ownership of the debt is recorded; and
(E) any other relevant information regarding the new
creditor.
15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1) (emphasis in original).
Defendant removed this lawsuit to federal court. Discovery
closed on August 26, 2016 (Pretrial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 6)
and
Defendant
subsequently
submitted
a
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 8). After several extensions, Plaintiffs filed
their Objection (ECF No. 16), and Defendant submitted a Reply
(ECF No. 17).
transfer did not occur until on or about February 3, 2015.
(Compl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 1-1; Pls.’ Obj. 10, ECF No. 16-1.) The
Court need not resolve this dispute in order to rule on
Defendant’s Motion.
2
II.
Standard of Review
On a summary judgment motion, the parties are required to
supply facts by “citing to particular parts of materials in the
record . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). The Court then
views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party and grants summary judgment only if “there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
III. Discussion
Defendant
provided
evidence
that
it
procured
Plaintiffs’
mortgage on July 28, 2014, and subsequently sent a notice of
transfer to Plaintiffs. (Weinberger Aff. ¶ 8, ECF No. 8-3; Def.’s
Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 6, ECF No. 8-3.) Plaintiffs argue that – even
assuming
those
facts
are
true
-
summary
judgment
is
not
appropriate because Defendant has failed to establish when the
notice
of
Defendant
transfer
sent
the
was
sent
notice
of
to
Plaintiffs
transfer
within
(i.e.,
thirty
whether
days
as
required by TILA). Plaintiffs’ argument must prevail.
Defendant submitted an Undisputed Statement of Facts that
describes how, “[f]ollowing the transfer of ownership of the
Mortgage Loan, DLJ sent Plaintiffs . . . notice of the transfer
dated August 29, 2014.” (Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶
6, ECF No. 8-2 (citing Weinberger Aff. ¶ 8, ECF No. 8-3; Def.’s
Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 6, ECF No. 8-3).) As this statement has gone
3
uncontroverted by Plaintiff, it is deemed admitted for summary
judgment purposes. See LR Cv 56(a)(3). However, as Plaintiffs
point out, while this statement establishes that a notice of
transfer was sent to Plaintiffs and that the notice was dated
August 29, 2014, these two facts do not establish the date on
which Defendant actually sent the notice to Plaintiffs. (Pls.’
Obj. 5-6, ECF No. 6-1.) Viewing the facts and drawing inferences
in the Plaintiffs’ favor, as the Court must for the purposes of
summary judgment, the Court cannot conclude that the notice of
transfer was sent the same day it was dated. Absent additional
evidence on this topic, the timeliness of the notice of transfer
is a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Defendant
brings
several
other
issues
to
the
Court’s
attention for the first time in its Reply brief. These arguments
are
untimely.
reasons
why
In
it
its
Reply,
believes
Defendant
this
Court
provides
should
additional
grant
summary
judgment. These include a statute of limitations defense as well
as
an
argument
bankruptcy
in
that
2010,
the
Plaintiffs,
cannot
assert
a
having
claim
gone
under
through
TILA
for
a
a
mortgage transferred in 2014. (Def.’s Reply 3-4, ECF No. 17.)
Regardless
because
of
they
merit,
were
these
argued
arguments
for
the
are
first
procedurally
time
in
barred
Defendant’s
Reply. See W. Reserve Life Assur. Co. of Ohio v. Conreal LLC,
715 F. Supp. 2d 270, 288–89 (D.R.I. 2010) (“Arguments ‘raised
4
for the first time in reply briefs are procedurally barred.’”)
(quoting Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC v. R.I. Coastal Res. Mgmt.
Council, 589 F.3d 458, 474 n.14 (1st Cir. 2009)); see also Wills
v. Brown Univ., 184 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 1999). The Court will
not consider these arguments in deciding Defendant’s Motion.
VI.
Conclusion
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
the
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: January 4, 2017
5
Defendant’s
Motion
for
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?