Fitch et al v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al

Filing 189

ORDER granting 96 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 117 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; adopting 184 Report and Recommendations. So Ordered by Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 3/31/2022. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
KENNETH FITCH and ESTATE OF
DIANNE L. FITCH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY; FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTAGE ASSOCIATION; WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A.; 266 PUTNAM
AVENUE, LLC; RUSHMORE LOAN
MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC; US
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as
Trustee for RMAC TRUST, SERIES
2016-CTT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 18-214-JJM-PAS

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the full briefing on Defendant 266 Putnam Avenue,
LLC’s (“Putnam”) two Motions for Partial Summary Judgment.

ECF Nos. 96,

117. The Court has also reviewed Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R) (ECF No. 184) and Plaintiffs’ Objections (ECF Nos. 185,
188).
The Court accepts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R for the reasons stated
in it. Plaintiffs’ claims seeking to void the foreclosure center mainly on notice, but
the Court agrees that Putnam’s notices were adequate; specifically, the Default
Notice that Putnam mailed to Plaintiffs strictly complied with Paragraph 22 of the
Mortgage as set forth in Woel v. Christiana Tr. as Tr. for Stanwich Mortg. Loan Tr.

Series 2017-17, 228 A.3d 339 (R.I. 2020); the Foreclosure Notice was not sent

prematurely; other notices, including the Notice of Mediation, were properly
addressed because Kenneth Fitch was undisputedly not the Borrower. Moreover,
Fannie Mae had standing to foreclose.
The Court also agrees that Plaintiffs’ constitutional due process claim in Count
I fails because the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that Fannie
Mae is not a government actor. Montilla v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 999 F.3d 751 (1st
Cir. 2021), cert. denied sub nom. Montilla v. Fannie Mae, No. 21-688, 2022 WL
827863 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2022).
In objecting to the R&R, Plaintiffs argue that applying Montilla and dismissing
the constitutional claim deprives the Court of jurisdiction as no federal claims remain
in the case and the parties are not diverse. Plaintiffs argue that the R&R errs by
failing to consider the jurisdictional issue and urge the Court to dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction. The Court declines to do so. “[O]nce [] supplemental jurisdiction
has attached, the mere fact that the anchoring federal claim subsequently goes up in
smoke does not, without more, doom all pendent state-law claims.”

Lawless v.

Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 894 F.3d 9, 19 (1st Cir. 2018) (citing
Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir. 1995); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(a), (c)). The Court considers “‘judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and
comity’” in deciding whether to exercise pendant jurisdiction. Lawless, 894 F.3d at
20 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). This
litigation has been marked by extensive motion practice and, after a rigorous review
of the briefing and oral argument, the R&R gives fair consideration to the breach of

2

contract claim, which is rooted in a common nucleus of facts as the federal claims.
The Court has also reviewed record in this case and does not believe that judicial
economy, convenience, or fairness is served by relinquishing the case at this stage of
the litigation.
The R&R’s reasoning is sound on all bases and the Court accepts it in full. The
Court GRANTS Putnam’s Partial Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 96,
117. The Court enters judgment in favor of Putnam terminating it as a party in this
case, and against Plaintiffs as to all his claims against Putnam. Because Montilla is
dispositive of all issues pertinent to Count I, the Court enters judgment against
Plaintiffs and in favor of all Defendants with respect to Count I (due process) of the
Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________
John J. McConnell, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
March 31, 2022

3