UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA
Loryne Joyce Bow en, P laintif f,
v. Civil Action No. 09-2277 (JD B) New Century Mor tgage C orporation et al. , Defendan ts.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION In this civil action filed pro se , plaintiff sues var ious participants in fore closure proce eding s involving her proper ty located on Per

ry Street in the northea st quadrant of the District of Columbia. Plainti ff pur ports to sue under the Truth in L endingAct (“ TI L A”) , 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et. seq. , and the Rea l Estate Settlement Procedur es Ac t (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et. seq. . She also asser

ts common law claims of fr aud, “wrong ful fore closure,” “slande r of title,” and civil conspira cy . SeeCompl. C aption. Pending be fore the Court are the motion of L . Dar ren G oldberg , J ames E. Clarke , Renee Dy son and Dra

per & Goldberg , PL L C (here afte r “Tr ustees”) to dismi ss [ Dkt. No. 10], and the motion of New Century

Mortg ag e Corporation, Carring ton Mortga g e Servic es, L L C, The Fishe r L aw Gr oup, PL L C, J eff

rey B. F isher, Scott R. Robins on, Blumentha l and Cordone, Edw ard J. Cordone and Ca

rol S. Blumenthal (he rea fter “New Ce ntury”) to dismiss [ Dkt. No. 13]. Upon consideration of the complaint, the motions to dis miss, and plaintiff’s opposition, the Court willdismiss the fe dera l claims as untimely filed, and w ill decline to exercise suppleme ntal jurisdiction over the rema ining c ommon law claims. Henc e, the c ase w ill be dismi ssed in its entirety

. 1 2 BACK GR OUND The re levant fa cts are as follows. Plaintiff executed a note for $340,000 w ith New Century Mortg ag e Corporation on August 5, 2006, at an adjustable inter est rate . Compl. at 5. New Ce ntury

alleg edly sold the note “on the ope n marke t,” “ove rcha rg ed Plaintiff at re financ ing” and eve ntually

made “ an ar

m’s leng th transfe r to Trustee s . . . to facilitate the f orec losure on its behalf .” Id . New Ce ntury

claims that the note wa s “sec ured by a re financ e De ed of Tr

ust, also dated August 5, 2006, and rec orded w ith the Recorde d [si c] of Dee ds for the D istrict of Columbi a[.] ” De f.’s Memor andum in Support of the Motion to Dismi ss Compl aint [13-1] at 1. After plaintiff def

aulted on the loan, N ew Century purcha sed the prope rty

at a f orec losure sale on August 19, 2008, and subsequently initiated eviction proce eding s ag ainst plaintiff in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Id . at 2, 3. The Super ior Court issued an orde r on De cembe r 3 8, 2009, g rantingthe eviction; post-judg ment motions are pending

. Id . at 3. Mea nwhile, plaintiff filed this action on Dec ember 1, 2009.

See28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (pe rmitting district courts to dec line to exercise supplementa l 1 jurisdiction when “a ll claims over which [the cour t] has orig inal jurisdiction” have be en dismiss ed). Also pendingis plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, which the Tr ustees have 2 opposed on the g round of f utilit y . Be cause the proff ere d amende d complaint is not materially differ ent from the or igina l complaint, allowing its filingonly to dismi ss it would be a futile exercise. The Court theref ore w ill deny

plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. Def endant Tr ustees “w ere appointed as substitute trustees to conduc t the fore closure 3 sale.” Trustee s’ Memora ndum of Points and Authorities in S upport of Motion to Dismis s at 1 & Ex . 1. -2-DISCUSSIO N

Def endants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)( 6) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure for f ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief c an be grante d. The District of Columbia Circuit has held that the RESPA’s “time limit ation is a jurisdictional prer equisite to suit and as such not subject to equitable tolling .” Hardin v. City Titl e &Escrow Co. , 797 F.2d 1037, 1038 ( D.C. Cir. 1986); see id . at 1039 (re cognizi ngsame for the TI L A). Subsequent Supre me Court guidance may indicate other

wise. See A rbaugh v. Y

&H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 510 (2006) (c larify ing “ that time presc riptions, however

emphatic, a

re not prope rly

ty ped jurisdictional”) (quoting Scarborough v. Principi , 541 U.S. 401, 414 (2004)) ( internal quotation marks a nd other c itations omi tted). In any event, “ [a] ffirmative actions under TI L A, ar e g ener ally

require d to be broug ht within one y ear of the violation . . . and ac tions for resc ission mus t be broug ht within three day s after consummation of the tra nsaction, or in the e vent the re levant disclosure s were never made, within three y ear s afte r consummation.” In re Dawson, 411 B .R. 1, 19-20 (B ankr. D .D.C. Apr. 9, 2008) ( citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1635(a),(f

), 1640(e )). A c ause of

action ac crue s “no later

than the settlement date.” Id

. at 20 (c itation omit ted). L ikewise, a RESP A claim must be brought within one or three y ear s of the settlement date , dependingon the claimed violation. See12 U.S.C. § 2614; Hardin , 797 F.2d at 1039 (“ Section 2614 is identical in all material r espec ts to 15 U.S.C . § 1640(e) , the time limit ation applicable to [ the TI L A.]”); acc ord W instead v. EMC Mortgage Corp ., 621 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3-4 (D.D .C. 2009) (deny ing motion for e merg ency relief to preve nt property

fore closure)

. Plaintiff’s filing of

this action near ly

four months beyond the most ge nerous e x piration date of August 5, 2009 -- three y ear s after settlement -- ba

rs her from proc eedingon the fe dera l statutory claims. No basis for

consideringequitable tolling ha s even be en off ere d, and ther e is no
-3-rea son for this Court to ex erc ise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims under 28 U .S.C.

§ 1367 at this early

stag e of the case once the fede ral c laims have be en dismissed. Henc e, the Court will gra

nt defe ndants’ motions to dism iss and will dism iss the case in its entirety . A separ ate f inal order acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

s/ J OHN D. B ATES United States District J udg e Dated: Ma

rch 22, 2010

-4-