1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 08- 2153 BA RBA RA L. AB BO TT, A ppel l ant
v. L O A N C IT Y , IN C ., M O R T G A G E S E L E C T R O N IC R E G IS T R A T IO N S Y S T E M S , IN C .; * F E D E R A L D E P O S IT IN S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T IO N , as R ec eive r fo r

W A S H IN G T O N M U T U A L B A N K ; THE P RI ORI TY M ORTGAGE GROUP, I NC. * ( A m ended pe rC l erk’ s O r derdat ed 12/ 2/ 08) A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C i v. N o. 2- 05- cv- 04497) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. J uan R
. Sánchez Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M onday , Sept ember20, 2010 Be f o r e : M c KEE , Ch i e f

Ci r c u i tJ u d g e , AM BR O and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es ( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember30, 2010)

OP I NI ON M cK E E , C hi ef J udge. B arbar a L. A bbot tappea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgementi n favorof the def endant i n hers ui tunderthe Truth- i n- L endi ng A ct( “TILA ”) , 15 U
. S. C § 1601 et s eq . FortheW e ne e d no t d isc u ss A b b o tt’ s c o n te n tio n s tha t she sh o u ld ha v e b e e n a llo w e d to a m e n d he r c o m p la int, 1 b ecause, f

o r the reasons the d i stri ct co urthas exp l ai ned , t hat co urtdid no tab use i t s d i scr et i o n i n not al l o wi ng t he c o m p la int to b e a m e n d e d
. S e e A b b o tt , 2008 W L 756069, * 3- 4.

W e wi l l not ad d res s argum ent s t hat A b b o t ti s at t em p t i ng t o rai se now t hat were only co nt ai ned i n t he 2 a m e n d e d c o m p la int sin c e tha t co m p la int is no t b e fo re us . See Uni t ed St at es v. Mel endez , 55 F.3d 13 0 , 13 6 (3d C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) ( ref

usi ng t o ad d res s an i ss ue rai sed f o r the f i rs tt i m e o n ap p eal ).

2 r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th b e l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. T he di s tr i ctcourthas s etforth the fa ctual and pr ocedur al hi s t oryof thi s cas e, and
w e n e e d n o t r e p e a t th e m . See Abbot tv. W as hi ngt on Mut ualF i nance, I nc. , 2 0 0 8 WL 756069 ( E
. D
. Pa. M ar ch 20, 2008)
. O n appea l , A bbot tar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n fi ndi ng thatthe br oker ’ s compensa t i on char ge w as notcover ed underthe TILA and th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s n o t li a b le f

o r d a m a g e s. S h e a lso a rg u e s th a t th e c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yre f

u sin g to a llo w h e r to a m e n d h e r c o m p lain t. 1 2 I n hi s M emora ndum and O pi ni on, J udge Sánche z ca r eful l yand cl ear l yexpl ai ned hi s r eas ons forfi ndi ng thatthe fe es pai d t o the br okerar e notcover ed bythe TILA
. T he d istric t ju d g e ’s a n a ly sis is th o ro u g h a n d w e ll-re a so n e d , an d w e c a n a d d little to h is th o u g h tf u l a n a lysis s in c e h is M e m o ra n d u m a n d O p in io n e x p la in th e c o u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n s . A ccor di ngl y , w e af

fi r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or ders ubs t ant i al l yforthe r eas ons s et forth i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s M emora ndum and O pi ni on w i thoutfurtherel abor at i on.