Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04177/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04177-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

CLD-132 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-4177

___________

IRWIN JACOBOWITZ; PEARL H. JACOBOWITZ, 

 Appellants

v.

M & T MORTGAGE CORPORATION; WEICHERT REALTORS; 

JOHN DOE; JANE DOE

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 3-09-cv-01332)

District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo

____________________________________

Submitted For Possible Summary Action 

Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

February 25, 2010

Before: BARRY, FISHER and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 24, 2010)

_________

 OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Irwin and Pearl Jacobowitz appeal from the District Court’s order dismissing their

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Appellee M & T Mortgage

Corporation (“M & T”) moves for summary action. For the following reasons, we will

Case: 09-4177 Document: 003110072079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
2

grant the motion and summarily affirm the District Court’s order. 

I.

The Jacobowitzes owned a home in Hawley, Pennsylvania. In 1999, the

Jacobowitzes entered into a mortgage agreement with M & T to secure a loan on the

property. Several years later, M & T commenced foreclosure proceedings against them

which ultimately resulted in the sale of their home at a July 18, 2008 sheriff’s sale.

On July 13, 2009, the Jacobowitzes filed a complaint in the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In the complaint, the Jacobowitzes alleged

that M & T had: (1) violated their due process rights during the state-court foreclosure

proceedings; (2) violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1501, et seq.,

by failing to disclose certain terms of their mortgage; and (3) engaged in fraudulent and

deceptive mortgage practices in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act

and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-1, et seq. The complaint also

named as defendants Weichert Realtors, who had allegedly “presented a buyer” for the

property at the sheriff’s sale, and two unidentified defendants, John and Jane Doe. 

The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who recommended that the

complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Magistrate Judge

also suggested that it was not necessary to give the Jacobowitzes an opportunity to amend

the complaint before dismissing it because amendment would be futile. See Grayson v.

Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2003). The Jacobowitzes were invited

Case: 09-4177 Document: 003110072079 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

1

3

to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, but did not do so. By

order entered October 5, 2009, the District Court adopted the Report and

Recommendation and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed. 

1

M & T has filed a motion for summary affirmance of the District Court’s order.

After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the appeal presents “no substantial

question” under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Therefore, we will grant M &

T’s motion. 

II.

A. Due Process Claims Against M & T

In their complaint, the Jacobowitzes raised several due process claims against M &

T pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to state a valid claim pursuant to § 1983 against

M & T, a private corporation, the Jacobowitzes were required to show not only that M &

T violated their federal rights, but also that it did so while acting under color of state law. 

See Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995). The complaint does

not, however, contain any allegations suggesting that M & T was acting under color of

state law in effectuating the foreclosure judgment. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge

correctly concluded that M & T was not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and

the District Court’s dismissal of the Jacobowitzes’s due process claims was proper. 

B. TILA Claims Against M & T

Case: 09-4177 Document: 003110072079 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
4

The District Court’s dismissal of the Jacobowitzes’s TILA claims was likewise

proper. In the complaint, the Jacobowitzes alleged that M & T violated 15 U.S.C. §§

1638(a), 1632(a), and 1605 by failing to disclose: (1) that their annual percentage rate

would fluctuate more than once per year; (2) that they would be charged additional fees

and costs without notice; and (3) the correct amount of their mortgage payment. As a

result of these violations, the Jacobowitzes alleged, they were entitled to both rescission

and money damages. 

First, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Jacobowitzes’s claim for

rescission was precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, which precludes lower federal courts from exercising appellate jurisdiction over

final state-court judgments, is implicated when, “in order to grant the federal plaintiff the

relief sought, the federal court must determine that the state court judgment was

erroneously entered or must take action that would render that judgment ineffectual.” 

FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 840 (3d Cir. 1996). 

Here, the Magistrate Judge found that the Jacobowitzes’s claim for rescission was

inextricably intertwined with the Court of Common Pleas’ foreclosure judgment because

granting rescission would negate the foreclosure judgment. We agree, as a favorable

decision for the Jacobowitzes in the District Court would prevent the Court of Common

Pleas from enforcing its order to foreclose the mortgage. See In re Madera, 596 F.3d 228

(3d Cir. 2009) (holding that Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred mortgagors’ TILA claims

Case: 09-4177 Document: 003110072079 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
To the extent that the complaint contained a free-standing request to vacate the 2

state-court foreclosure judgment, as well as a related order entered in the Jacobowitzes’s

bankruptcy case, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that any such request would be

precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

5

for rescission of mortgage, given that favorable judgment on rescission claims would

necessarily negate state-court foreclosure judgment).

2

We also agree with the Magistrate Judge that the Jacobowitzes’s claim for

damages under the TILA was time-barred. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e), TILA claims

for money damages must be brought within one year of the date of the mortgage, unless

they are brought as a defense to an action to collect the debt. Id.; see also Ramadan v.

Chase Manhattan Bank, 156 F.3d 499, 500–01 (3d Cir. 1998). The mortgage at issue here

was entered into in 1999, approximately ten years before the Jacobowitzes commenced

this action, and this action is not an action to collect a debt. Therefore, the District Court

correctly concluded that the Jacobowitzes’s TILA claim for damages was untimely. 

C. Claims Against Weichert Realtors and John and Jane Doe

Next, we see no error in the Magistrate Judge’s decision to dismiss Weichert

Realtors from the case. As the Magistrate Judge explained, the only reference made in

the complaint to Weichert Realtors is in the “Parties” section, where the Jacobowitzes

state solely that Weichert Realtors was the real estate agency that presented a buyer for

their property, presumably at the sheriff’s sale. Without any other allegations of

wrongdoing, the complaint could not be read to state a claim against this defendant. 

Case: 09-4177 Document: 003110072079 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
6

Therefore, the District Court’s dismissal of this defendant was proper. 

The District Court also properly dismissed the Jacobowitzes’s claims against John

and Jane Doe, as the complaint does not contain any allegations whatsoever against these

unidentified parties. 

E. Opportunity to Amend the Complaint

On appeal, the Jacobowitzes also argue that the District Court erred in dismissing

their complaint without first giving them a chance to amend it. In making this argument,

however, the Jacobowitzes fail to identify what specific allegations they would have made

had they been given an opportunity, nor do they explain how those allegations would have

saved their complaint. Furthermore, we note that the Jacobowitzes were given ten days to

file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, but declined to do

so. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the District Court abused its

discretion by dismissing the complaint without providing the Jacobowitzes with an

opportunity to amend it. 

E. State-law Claims Against M & T

Finally, we see no error in the District Court’s decision to decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the Jacobowitzes’s claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair

Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-1, et seq., as

this Court has made clear that, “where the claim over which the district court has original

jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendant

Case: 09-4177 Document: 003110072079 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the

parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Borough of W. Mifflin v.

Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original). Given that, in this

case, the District Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss all

of the federal claims over which it had jurisdiction, and there were no other particular

considerations of fairness brought to its attention, the District Court acted within its

discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Jacobowitzes’s state

law claims.

III.

For the reasons set forth above, we will grant M & T’s motion for summary action

and summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P.

10.6. 

7

Case: 09-4177 Document: 003110072079 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/24/2010