Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Filing 157

ORDER DENYING FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCYS MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL. The Federal Housing Finance Agencys Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) ECF No. 152 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7

LAURA ZAMORA JORDAN, as her separate
estate, and on behalf of others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.

NO: 2:14-CV-0175-TOR
ORDER DENYING FEDERAL
HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY’S MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION OF
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,

11
Defendant,
12
and
13
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY,
14
Intervenor.
15
16

BEFORE THE COURT is the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Motion

17

for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). ECF

18

No. 152. This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The

19

Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and files herein, and is fully

20

informed.
ORDER DENYING FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY’S
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ~ 1

1

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff challenges Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC’s policy of taking

3

possession of homes in default by entering and changing locks prior to foreclosure.

4

See ECF No. 1-2. On November 15, 2016, Federal Housing Finance Agency moved

5

for partial summary judgment, see ECF No. 118, on the ground that the Housing and

6

Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”) 1 preempts RCW 7.28.230, a Washington

7

state law prohibiting lenders from pre-foreclosure property possession. On March 9,

8

2017, this Court issued its Order Denying FHFA’s Motion for Partial Summary

9

Judgment (the “Order”). ECF No. 147.

10

FHFA now seeks final resolution from the Ninth Circuit on whether HERA

11

broadly “prohibit[s] the application of Washington state law to claims involving

12

Enterprise-owned deeds of trust under any theory of preemption—express, field, or

13

conflict.” See ECF No. 152 at 7. In its Order, however, the Court narrowly held that

14

HERA does not preempt RCW 7.28.230 because (1) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(7) does not

15

expressly preempt the state statute; (2) Congress left room for state law compliance

16

with RCW 7.28.230 as it does not conflict with the FHFA’s powers; and (3) there is

17

no conflict between HERA and RCW 7.28.230. ECF No. 147.

18
19
20

1

Pub. L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654 (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.).

ORDER DENYING FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY’S
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ~ 2

1

FHFA moves the Court to certify an order for interlocutory appeal on this issue

2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). ECF No. 152. For the reasons discussed below, the

3

Court DENIES the motion.

4

DISCUSSION

5

A. Standard of Review

6

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), an otherwise non-final order may be subject

7

to interlocutory appeal if the district court certifies, in writing, the following: (1) the

8

order involves a “controlling issue of law,” (2) the controlling issue of law is one to

9

which there is a “substantial ground for difference of opinion,” and (3) “an immediate

10

appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the

11

litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Ninth Circuit has observed that the “the

12

legislative history of 1292(b) indicates that this section was to be used only in

13

exceptional situations in which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid

14

protracted and expensive litigation.” In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020,

15

1026 (9th Cir. 1982) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

16

Here, the Court declines to certify an order for interlocutory appeal because,

17

although the first factor is arguably satisfied, FHFA has not shown a substantial

18

ground for a difference of opinion or that an immediate appeal may materially

19

advance the ultimate termination of this action. Moreover, there are no “exceptional

20

circumstances” warranting immediate appeal. See id.
ORDER DENYING FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY’S
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ~ 3

1

A. Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion

2

There is substantial ground for a difference of opinion when “reasonable

3

judges might differ.” Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 688 (9th

4

Cir. 2011) (citing In re Cement, 673 F.2d at 1029). However, a movant’s “strong

5

disagreement with the Court’s ruling is not sufficient for there to be a substantial

6

ground for difference.” Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010)

7

(internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he mere presence of a disputed issue that is a

8

question of first impression, standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate a

9

substantial ground for difference of opinion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and

10

citations omitted). Importantly, “interlocutory appellate jurisdiction does not turn on

11

a prior court’s having reached a conclusion adverse to that from which appellants

12

seek relief.” Reese, 643 F.3d at 688.

13

As a preliminary matter, FHFA mischaracterizes the issue as “whether HERA

14

protects FHFA from any state law that infringes upon the exercise of its rights,

15

powers, and privileges, . . . or whether it protects FHFA only from infringements by

16

state agencies, as the Court held.” ECF No. 152 at 5 (emphasis added). FHFA’s

17

portrayal is inaccurate. The issue is narrowly confined to whether HERA preempts

18

RCW 7.28.230, specifically. See ECF No. 147 at 2. Likewise, the Court did not hold

19

that HERA “protects FHFA only from infringements by state agencies.” See ECF

20

No. 147 (merely finding, inter alia, that “12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(7) does not evince a
ORDER DENYING FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY’S
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ~ 4

1

clear and manifest congressional intent to expressly preempt state law” and

2

“Congress left room in HERA for state law compliance, provided that such laws do

3

not conflict with FHFA’s power[s]”).

4

FHFA maintains that HERA preempts RCW 7.28.230 and there are actual and

5

substantial grounds for a difference of opinion. The Court disagrees. FHFA argues

6

that City of Chicago is a decision concerning an “identical” issue, see ECF No. 152 at

7

9, despite that it concerns FHFA’s refusal to comply with a local building ordinance

8

(rather than impairing real property rights). Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. City of

9

Chicago, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (N.D. Ill. 2013). This Court comprehensibly

10

explained why the facts in City of Chicago are distinguishable and the district court’s

11

reasoning was unpersuasive. Id.; see also ECF No. 147 at 15-22. FHFA next argues

12

that a smattering of other cases are in “significant tension” with the Court’s decision,

13

but each is unpersuasive for many of the same reasons the Court previously

14

articulated in its Order. See ECF No. 147 at 11 (renouncing dicta in Robinson v.

15

FHFA, No. 7:15-cv-109-KKC, 2016 WL 4726555, at *6 (E.D. Ky. 2016), appeal

16

docketed, No. 16-6680 (6th Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) and Suero v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg.

17

Corp., 2015 WL 4919999, *9 (D. Mass. 2015)); see also Massachusetts v. FHFA, 54

18

F. Supp. 3d 94, 101-02 (D. Mass. 2014) (merely speculating that the Complaint

19

would “likely” not withstand a preemption analysis).

20

ORDER DENYING FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY’S
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ~ 5

1

The latest case to surface, Saxton v. FHFA, No. 15-CV-47-LRR, 2017 WL

2

1148279 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 27, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-1727 (8th Cir. April 4,

3

2017), is similarly unavailing. See ECF No. 152 at 8. There, the Saxton-court simply

4

stated that “§ 4617(a)(7) specifically functions to remove obstacles to FHFA’s

5

exercise of conservator powers—i.e. to preserve FHFA’s interests, not those of GSE

6

shareholders.” Saxton, 2017 WL 1148279 at *10. Broadly, the Court does not

7

necessarily disagree, but dicta—peripherally articulated in the context of whether

8

shareholders fell within a zone of interest created by 12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(7)—is

9

categorically not in tension with this Court’s Order. See ECF No. 147.

10

Even assuming arguendo that conflicting authorities exist, the FHFA’s

11

argument still fails to meet the prerequisite for granting its § 1292(b) motion because

12

reasonable jurists could not disagree with the Court’s decision given the facts here,

13

coupled with HERA’s legislative history, intent, and purpose. See Reese, 643 F.3d at

14

688. The standard is “not merely [whether other jurists] have already disagreed.” Id.

15

For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that there is only one reasonable

16

interpretation of the preemption issue and, therefore, there is no substantial ground

17

for difference of opinion.

18

B. Advancement of the Ultimate Termination of this Action.

19

The Court finds that there is no possibility that an immediate interlocutory

20

appeal may materially advance the termination of litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
ORDER DENYING FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY’S
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ~ 6

1

The parties have been litigating this matter since 2012, over five years ago. See ECF

2

No. 113 at 2-3. It originated in state court, was removed to this court, went to the

3

Ninth Circuit once, returned to this court, went to the Washington State Supreme

4

Court, and has now returned here. Trial is set for December 18, 2017. See ECF No.

5

151. Even if the Court granted FHFA’s request for an interlocutory appeal, a trial is

6

still necessary. Allowing an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance this

7

litigation: even if the Ninth Circuit were to grant FHFA the relief it seeks, such a

8

ruling could not possibly come into effect before trial has concluded and, therefore,

9

would further disrupt the impending trial date.

10

Because granting certification for appeal would also not materially advance

11

termination of litigation, FHFA’s request to certify an order for interlocutory appeal

12

is DENIED.

13

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

14
15
16
17
18

1. The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Certification for Interlocutory
Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (ECF No. 152) is DENIED.
The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide
copies to counsel.
DATED April 28, 2017.

19
20

THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY’S
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ~ 7