Stitt et al v. Citibank, N.A. et al, No. 4:2012cv03892 - Document 151 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 113 Motion to Certify Class; denying as moot 140 Defendants' Motion for Leave to Respond to Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2015)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stitt et al v. Citibank, N.A. et al Doc. 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GLORIA STITT, et al., 10 Plaintiffs, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION vs. Re: Dkt. Nos. 113, 140 12 13 Case No.: 12-cv-03892- YGR CITIBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AND CITIMORTGAGE, INC., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the Court is the motion for class certification filed by plaintiffs Gloria Stitt, Ronald 16 Stitt, Mark Zirlott, and Terri Zirlott (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). (Dkt. No. 113, “Mtn.”)1 17 Defendants Citibank, National Association and CitiMortgage, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or 18 “Citi”) oppose. Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, 19 oral argument on September 1, 2015, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES 20 Plaintiffs’ motion. 21 22 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Citi serviced home mortgage loans throughout the proposed class period. In this role, Citi 23 is responsible for providing certain services to protect the mortgage lenders’ interest in the 24 property securing the loan. Among these services are property inspections, which the servicer 25 orders to inspect the property that secures a delinquent loan when a borrower goes into default on 26 27 28 1 The Court resolves the three administrative motions to seal documents submitted in connection with the substantive motion via separate order entered this date. Dockets.Justia.com 1 the underlying mortgage. (See Dkt. No. 127-68 ¶ 4.) Citi uses an automated software 2 management system, CitiLink, to manage the process of charging borrowers for property 3 inspections. (Id. ¶ 7.) CitiLink is generally programmed to order an initial property inspection 4 from its vendor once a borrower is forty-five (45) days delinquent on loan payments and every 5 thirty (30) days thereafter if the borrower remains delinquent. (Id. ¶ 8.) Citi sends delinquent borrowers pre-inspection letters informing them they will be charged 6 for an inspection if their default is not cured. (Dkt. No. 12-9 at 37.) The pre-inspection letters 8 also inform borrowers that the fee would be reflected on their monthly billing statement as a 9 “delinquency expense,” and that the inspections would continue to occur monthly as long as the 10 mortgage remained in default. (Id.) The monthly mortgage statements further explain that the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 term “delinquency expense” includes “third-party expenses such as property inspection 12 fees…incurred by [Citi] as a result of default.” (Id.) Some borrowers, including the Stitts, 13 received itemized breakdowns of charges due, listing charges for “Inspections/Pending 14 Inspections” or “Monthly Inspections.” (Dkt. No. 127-16 at 68; Dkt. No. 127-17 at 71.) Citi 15 charged borrowers for only the cost a third party vendor charged Citi for the inspection, with no 16 “mark-up.”2 Citi was the servicer on the named Plaintiffs’ mortgages. Plaintiffs now challenge Citi’s 17 18 practice of using CitiLink, which they allege automatically orders property inspections and 19 charges borrowers for same. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Citi’s practices are not authorized 20 by Plaintiffs’ mortgage agreements. Plaintiffs now seek to recover the property inspection fees 21 they previously paid to Citi under theories of fraud and unjust enrichment. 22 23 II. PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED CLASS DEFINITIONS AND CLAIMS Plaintiffs move to certify three classes: 24 1. Nationwide Unjust Enrichment Class All residents of the United States of America who had a loan serviced by CitiMortgage from January 1, 2003 through June 1, 2013, and who paid fees for one or more property inspections. 25 26 27 2 28 The parties agree that Citi did not assess fees to borrowers for property inspections conducted in the states of West Virginia and Maryland, pursuant to those states’ laws. 2 1 2. New York Fraud Class All residents of New York who had a loan serviced by CitiMortgage from January 1, 2003 through June 1, 2013, and who paid fees for one or more property inspections. 2 3 4 3. Alabama Fraud Class All residents of Alabama who had a loan serviced by CitiMortgage from January 1, 2003 through June 1, 2013, and who paid fees for one or more property inspections. 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Mtn. at 2.) Plaintiffs seek to certify all classes as damages classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). III. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard Rule 23, which governs class certification, contains two sets of distinct requirements that Plaintiffs must meet before the Court may certify either class. First, Plaintiffs must meet all of the requirements under Rule 23(a). Second, each class must meet at least one of the prongs of Rule 23(b), depending on the nature of the class. Under Rule 23(a), the Court may certify a class only where “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). Courts refer to these four requirements as “numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation.” Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581, 588 (9th Cir. 2012). In addition to the four requirements set forth in Rule 23(a), most courts have implied an additional threshold requirement: that the members of the class are readily ascertainable. See Xavier v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 787 F.Supp.2d 1075, 1089 (N.D.Cal. 2011) (“the party seeking certification must demonstrate that an identifiable and ascertainable class exists”); Herrera v. LCS Fin. Servs. Corp., 274 F.R.D. 666. 672 (N.D.Cal. 2011) (“[w]hile Rule 23(a) is silent as to whether the class must be ascertainable, courts have held that the rule implies this requirement). If Plaintiffs establish that the threshold requirements of Rule 23(a) are met, Plaintiffs then have the burden to show “through evidentiary proof” that a class is appropriate for certification under one of the provisions in Rule 23(b). Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 3 1 2 1426, 1432 (2013). “[A] court’s class-certification analysis must be ‘rigorous’ and may ‘entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.’” Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust 4 Funds, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 1194 (2013) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 5 2551 (2011)); see also Mazza, 666 F.3d at 588. The Court considers the merits to the extent that 6 they overlap with the Rule 23 requirements. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 983 7 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court must resolve factual disputes to the extent “necessary to determine 8 whether there was a common pattern and practice that could affect the class as a whole.” Id. 9 (emphasis in original). “When resolving such factual disputes in the context of a motion for class 10 certification, district courts must consider ‘the persuasiveness of the evidence presented.’” Aburto 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 v. Verizon Cal., Inc., 2012 WL 10381, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012) (quoting Ellis, 657 F.3d at 12 982). Ultimately, the district court must exercise its discretion to determine whether a class should 13 be certified. Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 703 (1979). 14 15 B. Analysis With the exception of numerosity, Citi argues that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their 16 burden with respect to all class certification requirements. The Court begins with an analysis of 17 the Rule 23(a) factors. Finding at the outset that Plaintiffs have not met their burden on Rule 18 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement, the Court does not proceed further in the analysis. 19 20 1. Numerosity The numerosity requirement under Rule 23(a)(1) is undoubtedly met here and Citi does not 21 contend otherwise. Plaintiffs submit that there are more than one million putative class members 22 in the nationwide class. (Pifko Decl., Exh. 5 at 134; Id., Exh. 17 at 322-24.) With potentially 23 more than one million class members residing in fifty states, at least as to the nationwide unjust 24 enrichment class, the Court agrees that numerosity is satisfied. 25 26 2. Commonality Rule 23(a)(2) requires that the party seeking certification show “there are questions of law 27 or fact common to the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). To satisfy this requirement, a common 28 question “must be of such a nature that it is capable of class-wide resolution – which means that 4 1 the determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each of 2 the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2545. The existence of common questions itself 3 will not satisfy the commonality requirement, and instead, “[w]hat matters to class certification 4 …is… the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the 5 resolution of the litigation.” Id. at 2551. Under the commonality inquiry, “Plaintiffs need not 6 show that every question in the case, or even a preponderance of questions, is capable of classwide 7 resolution. So long as there is ‘even a single common question,’ a would-be class can satisfy the 8 commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).” Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 737 F.3d 538, 9 544 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2556). 10 Here, Plaintiffs propose only one common question as suitable for determination on a United States District Court Northern District of California 11 classwide basis for all classes. The question, as framed by Plaintiffs, is whether CitiLink 12 generated unauthorized property inspection fees that were then assessed to borrowers’ accounts by 13 not taking individual circumstances of borrowers into account. (Mtn. at 15-17.) This question, 14 Plaintiffs argue, would drive the ultimate resolution of their claims because it would establish 15 liability class-wide. In that regard, Plaintiffs contend that Citi had an automated, uniform practice 16 that applied to every property inspection for which it would charge borrowers throughout the 17 entire class period. Thus, in Plaintiffs’ view, the legality of Citi’s purportedly uniform practice3 18 spanning more than a decade is the central issue in this case. 19 Plaintiffs’ argument has obvious appeal. Should a fact-finder conclude that the manner in 20 which CitiLink ordered and charged borrowers for property inspections was unlawful; the logical 21 conclusion would be that all class members would be entitled to relief. However, this simplistic 22 approach glosses over – indeed arguably ignores – Plaintiffs’ claims for relief. Plaintiffs 23 fundamentally fail to illustrate the efficacy of a determination of the impropriety of CitiLink’s 24 automated system in the context of their claims. 25 26 27 28 3 The Court assumes, without deciding, that Plaintiffs fulfilled their threshold burden to establish Citi operated under a common policy applied uniformly to all class members. C.f. related case Ellis, et al. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 12-3897, December 17, 2015 (finding that plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants applied a property inspection policy uniformly to all class members). 5 1 Plaintiffs’ commonality argument unravels upon an examination of the elements of the 2 remaining claims in this action. To find commonality satisfied, the Court must be convinced that 3 a determination that Citi’s challenged practice was unlawful will ultimately advance the litigation 4 on Plaintiffs’ proposed class claims: fraud under the laws of New York and Alabama.4 To 5 maintain a fraud claim under the laws of both states, Plaintiffs must prove: (1) a material 6 misrepresentation or omission of fact, (2) which Defendants knew to be false, (3) made for the 7 purpose of inducing Plaintiffs to rely upon it, (4) justifiable or reasonable reliance, and (5) injury 8 caused by the misrepresentation or omission. Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 944 N.E.2d 9 1104, 1108 (N.Y. 2011); Mantiply v. Mantiply, 951 So.2d 638, 653 (Ala. 2006). 10 Plaintiffs base their fraud claims on Citi’s alleged misrepresentation (element one) that United States District Court Northern District of California 11 property inspection fees were charged in accordance with the borrowers’ mortgage agreements, 12 when in fact the charges were neither valid nor due.5 The inquiry thus becomes how a 13 determination that Citi’s methodology was unlawful could advance the litigation. Would a finding 14 that Citi’s methodology is “actionable” generate a common answer that Citi made a 15 misrepresentation when it implicitly stated that inspection charges were valid? The answer is no. 16 Under Plaintiffs’ theory, a given property inspection charge must have been invalid under 17 the terms of a borrower’s particular mortgage agreement for Citi to have made a 18 4 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs also move to certify a nationwide unjust enrichment class. However, in Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., the Ninth Circuit unequivocally held that the “elements necessary to establish a claim for unjust enrichment…vary materially from state to state.” 666 F.3d 581, 591 (9th Cir. 2012). No court in this Circuit has certified a nationwide unjust enrichment class since Mazza and Plaintiffs have failed to show how this Court could manage a nationwide class where fifty varying states’ laws would apply, as required under Rule 23(b)(3). For these reasons, and those set forth in more detail in related case Bias, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., Case No. 12-cv-664, December 17, 2015, the Court finds that certification of a nationwide unjust enrichment class is improper under Rule 23. Because the nationwide unjust enrichment class is otherwise not suitable for certification, the Court limits its commonality analysis to Plaintiffs’ two remaining proposed classes: the New York Fraud Class and Alabama Fraud Class. 5 In addition, Plaintiffs argue that Citi uniformly concealed the property inspection fees by using the allegedly inaccurate description of “delinquency expenses.” This argument is not supported by the record. In particular, Plaintiffs do not address how this “grouping” could amount to a misrepresentation in light of Citi’s evidence that the same mortgage statements defined “delinquency expenses” to include property inspection fees. (See Dkt. No. 127-9 at 141.) Accordingly, the Court does not consider this unsubstantiated theory for purposes of class certification. 6 1 misrepresentation. The terms of the mortgage itself govern whether a property inspection fee was 2 validly charged. And, Plaintiffs’ expert Jacqui Peace agrees that inspection fees are authorized by 3 Plaintiffs’ mortgages under certain circumstances. (See Dkt. No. 127-55, “Peace Dep.,” at 4 Kane000175-76.) Ms. Peace further agrees that individual considerations must be assessed to 5 determine whether a property inspection was authorized. (Id. at Kane000169.) More specifically, 6 individual circumstances must be considered to determine whether a property inspection was 7 “reasonable or appropriate” as prescribed by the Stitts’ mortgage, or “necessary” as prescribed by 8 the Zirlotts’ mortgage. (Id.; see Dkt. No. 127-3; Dkt. No. 127-18.) Thus, given the nature of Plaintiffs’ theory, the Court finds that the focus of this case 10 hinges on a contract dispute. Citi’s liability rises or falls on whether a fact-finder determines that a 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 property inspection fee was authorized by the borrower’s mortgage agreement. As Plaintiffs 12 insist, “it is the language of Plaintiffs’ [sic] and class members’ mortgages…which is relevant to 13 Plaintiffs’ claims.” (Dkt. No. 137 at 11:18-19.) Reviewing only the named Plaintiffs’ mortgage 14 agreements shows that class members’ agreements had “distinct terms” such that common proof 15 could not be used to determine the validity of property inspection fees. Berger v. Home Depot 16 USA, 741 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding that “distinct terms” in plaintiffs’ contracts 17 made determination of whether a material misrepresentation was made not suitable for classwide 18 determination). Some mortgages impose a standard of reasonableness or appropriateness, while 19 others impose a standard of necessity before allowing fees such as property inspections. These 20 standards are not interchangeable. “The term ‘reasonable’ is quite broad” while “[i]f a particular 21 act is only authorized when necessary, the prospective actor is held to quite a demanding standard 22 before it can act.” Vega v. Ocwen Financial Corp., 2015 WL 1383241, at *3, *5 (C.D.Cal. March 23 24, 2015); see also Gustafson v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 294 F.R.D. 529, 542 (C.D.Cal. 24 2013) (declining plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated invitation to construe “reasonable or appropriate” and 25 “necessary” as equivalent mortgage terms). Plaintiffs’ theory would therefore require a fact-finder 26 to evaluate Citi’s behavior based on at least two separate standards. Gustafson, 294 F.R.D. at 542 27 (finding commonality and predominance not met where approximately half of class members’ 28 mortgage agreements allowed “reasonable or appropriate action” and the other half empowered 7 1 2 the servicer to do only what was “necessary”). This alone defeats commonality.6 Id. Plaintiffs’ theory that the manner in which Citi ordered and charged property inspection fees was unlawful and per se invalid is not tenable. To show a misrepresentation, Plaintiffs would 4 have to establish that the circumstances in fact did not warrant a property inspection or charge. 5 Otherwise, Citi’s representation in pre-inspection letters and mortgage statements that a charge 6 was valid is not a misrepresentation. Each class member would still have to prove that a given 7 charge was not valid regardless of whether Citi’s automatic methodology is lawful. See Klay v. 8 Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004) (proving that defendant had a “general 9 conspiracy or policy of breaching” a contract would not obviate the need for each class member to 10 show that there was a breach with respect to their claim); Benner, 917 F.Supp.2d at 352, 355 (“A 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 Court must examine the facts of each case” to determine whether a property inspection may be 12 ordered “at the borrower’s expense”) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, the issue of whether Citi 13 failed to pre-determine whether the circumstances warranted an inspection (or multiple 14 inspections) is not dispositive. 15 In sum, the validity of a property inspection charge is an individual inquiry. Plaintiffs’ 16 attempt to characterize their claims as challenges to CitiLink’s automated programming does 17 nothing to advance the litigation. In re Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Overtime Pay Litig., 571 18 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2009) (reversing district court’s certification order where defendant’s 19 policy would do “nothing to facilitate common proof on otherwise individualized issues”); see 20 also St. Louis Chiropractic v. Federal Insurance Co., 2008 WL 4056225 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2008) 21 (dismissing class claims because determining the reasonableness of defendants’ actions required 22 6 23 24 25 26 27 28 Citi further argues that there are material differences in the terms of the agreements insofar as some mortgages include a paragraph 14 authorizing a servicer to “charge [borrowers] for services performed in connection with [their] default, for the purpose of protecting Lender’s interest in the Property and rights under the Security Instrument, including…property inspection…fees.” (Dkt. No. 127-3 at 7.) In Citi’s view, paragraph 14 specifically authorizes property inspection fees and controls over the more general provision allowing them only where they are “reasonable or appropriate.” At least two courts have agreed with Citi. First, In Vega, supra, the court concluded that mortgages including this paragraph 14 make property inspection fees reasonable in all circumstances. 2015 WL 1383241, at *4. Second, in Benner v. Bank of America, N.A., the district court noted that paragraph 14 permitted defendants to charge plaintiffs for property inspections, without any reasonableness or appropriateness requirement. 917 F.Supp.2d 338, 353 (E.D.Pa. 2013.) 8 1 individualized evaluation), aff’d, 342 F.App’x 809 (3d Cir. 2009) Absent a link between 2 Plaintiffs’ common question vis-à-vis Citi’s methodology on the one hand, and Plaintiffs’ theory 3 vis-à-vis a fraudulent misrepresentation on the other, Plaintiffs’ motion fails. The cases on which Plaintiffs rely are inapposite. Plaintiffs principally rely on Huyer v. 4 5 Wells Fargo & Co., 295 F.R.D. 332 (S.D. Iowa 2013). In Huyer, the district court certified a 6 damages class asserting claims based on conduct very similar to the conduct at issue here: Wells 7 Fargo’s use of an automated system to charge borrowers for property inspections without 8 particularized determinations that inspections were necessary. Importantly, however, the Huyer 9 plaintiffs brought claims alleging violations of RICO and California’s unfair competition law, not common law fraud. With respect to the RICO claim, policies demonstrating a pattern of 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 racketeering activities “constitute essential elements” of the claim. Id. at 348 (quoting Klay, 382 12 F.3d at 1257). By contrast, here, Citi’s methodology could at most constitute circumstantial proof 13 of wrongdoing. It could not establish any element of Plaintiffs’ claims. In fact, Plaintiffs’ claims 14 are more akin to the breach of contract claim that the Huyer court conceded would likely be 15 “impossible” to certify due to individualized issues. Id. Plaintiffs also cite Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank for the proposition that their claims 16 17 satisfy the commonality inquiry. 280 F.R.D. 665, 672 (S.D.Fla. 2012). That case involved the 18 allegation that Wells Fargo used illegal kickbacks in conspiring with an insurer to inflate force- 19 placed insurance premiums for borrowers. Id. at 669. Based on that allegation, the district court 20 found certification of a class to bring unjust enrichment claims appropriate because its truth or 21 falsity would answer the “ultimate question of liability” for every class member in one stroke. Id. 22 at 672. Unlike the unjust enrichment claim in Williams, a finding that Citi’s policy was unlawful 23 would not prove that all members of the proposed class were exposed to a misrepresentation.7 24 Williams does not persuade. 25 /// 26 27 28 7 The Court makes no finding with respect to whether Plaintiffs’ proposed common question would satisfy commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) in the context of their unjust enrichment claim. 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established a common 1 2 3 question “central to the validity” of their claims. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. IV. PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiffs filed a document entitled “Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections to Evidence 5 Submitted with Opposition to Class Certification,” appended to their twenty-page reply. (Dkt. No. 6 137-1.) Plaintiffs’ objections were not filed in compliance with the Local Rules of this District. 7 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(c), “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the opposition must 8 be contained in the reply brief or memorandum.” Plaintiffs filed their objections as a separate 9 document outside of their reply brief. On that basis, the objections are DENIED. Accordingly, 10 Defendants’ motion for leave to respond to Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections (Dkt. No. 140) is 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 4 DENIED AS MOOT. 12 13 14 V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to certify and DENIES Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections. 15 This Order terminates Docket Numbers 113, 140. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: December 17, 2015 18 19 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
