Mandrigues et al-v-World Savings, Inc. et al, No. 5:2007cv04497 - Document 157 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING 85 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY OF ACTION. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 1/20/09. (jflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2009)

Download PDF

Mandrigues et al-v-World Savings, Inc. et al Doc. 157 1 **E-Filed 1/20/09** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 14 DOLORES MANDRIGUES, JUANITA JONES, AL F. MINYEN, WILMA R. MINYEN, MARK CLAUSON, and CHRISTINA CLAUSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, 15 Case Number C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER1 DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY OF ACTION Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 18 19 WORLD SAVINGS, INC., WORLD SAVINGS BANK FSB, and WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants. 20 21 22 Plaintiffs Dolores Mandrigues, Juanita Jones, Al Minyen, Wilma Minyen, Mark 23 Clauson, and Christina Clauson (“Plaintiffs”) allege violations of the federal Truth in Lending 24 Act (“TILA”) and state-law claims for unfair business practices, breach of contract, and breach 25 of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants World 26 Savings, Inc. and Wachovia Mortgage Corporation (“Defendants”) failed to disclose important 27 28 1 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) Dockets.Justia.com 1 information about their home mortgages in the clear and conspicuous manner required by law. 2 On April 9, 2008, this Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. On 3 November 7, 2008, Plaintiffs moved to certify several classes of similarly situated individuals 4 and for a class-wide preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs request that the Court preliminarily 5 enjoin Defendants from foreclosing upon any of the approximately 500,000 putative class 6 member’ loans. 7 On November 21, 2008, Defendants filed an administrative request seeking a stay of the 8 instant action on the ground that it currently is the subject of a transfer motion pending before 9 the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”). Evaluating Defendants’ request by 10 reference to the factors governing the issuance of stays, the Court determined that, at least based 11 on the concededly incomplete record and briefing then before it, Plaintiffs were likely enough to 12 succeed in demonstrating an entitlement to class certification and some form of preliminary 13 injunctive relief that countervailing considerations of judicial economy did not justify 14 imposition of a stay.2 Accordingly, the Court declined to vacate the scheduled hearing on 15 Plaintiffs’ motions. 16 With the benefit of full briefing and a complete record, it is now apparent that Plaintiffs 17 are unable to demonstrate an entitlement to the sweeping preliminary injunctive relief they seek. 18 Plaintiffs cannot show that they are likely to suffer imminent, irreparable harm, and their motion 19 accordingly must be denied. Moreover, because considerations of judicial economy still weigh 20 heavily in favor of a stay during the pendency of the JPML proceedings, and because the 21 countervailing possibility that Plaintiffs otherwise would suffer imminent, irreparable harm has 22 been shown not to exist, the Court will order the instant action stayed pending a decision by the 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The Court observed that “much as ‘[a] preliminary injunction is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits, but a device for preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable loss of rights before judgment,’ the present inquiry concerns only whether Plaintiffs are likely enough to succeed in obtaining preliminary injunctive relief that the Court should preserve their right to proceed without further delay, notwithstanding the countervailing interest of judicial economy.” Order Denying Request for Administrative Relief, at 4:18-24 (quoting Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. ABMH & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 2001)). 2 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 JPML. 2 I. BACKGROUND 3 Plaintiffs and the putative class members each entered an agreement for an Option 4 Adjustable Rate Mortgage product known as the “Pick-a-Payment” loan. Such loans permitted 5 each borrower to chose an initial payment level corresponding to his or her financial situation. 6 The payment levels included: (1) a “Minimum Payment” calculated using an “internal” rate and 7 not guaranteed to cover all of the interest due in a given month; (2) an interest-only payment 8 designed to ensure coverage of all interest due each month; and (3) a payment comparable to 9 that on a fixed-rate loan, calculated to retire the loan evenly over its thirty-year term. 10 In connection with the loan transaction, each Plaintiff and the putative class members 11 received a federally mandated Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement (“Statement”) and a Loan 12 Program Disclosure (“Disclosure”) with information specific to the loan under consideration.3 13 The Statement disclosed the cost of the loan as an Annual Percentage Rate (“APR”) and 14 provided a schedule of estimated payments (“Payment Schedule”). The Payment Schedule 15 listed an initial minimum payment that increased by up to 7.5% each year on a specified 16 payment change date. The loans provided for re-amortization when the principal balance 17 exceeded either 110% or 125% of its original value, a process known as “recasting.” A loan 18 may reach its balance cap when the borrower’s monthly payment routinely is insufficient to 19 cover all of the interest due in a given month, resulting in the addition of excess interest to the 20 principal balance. This phenomenon is known as negative amortization. 21 Plaintiffs claim that the loan documents failed clearly and conspicuously to disclose the 22 interest rate structure applicable to their loans and the purported certainty that negative 23 amortization would occur if they made only the minimum payments. On this basis, Plaintiffs 24 25 26 27 28 3 Consideration of these materials is proper pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c), which states that “[a] copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” In addition to the above documents, several of the named Plaintiffs and many of the putative class members received additional documentation and oral representations concerning their loans. The instant disposition does not require reference to these materials. 3 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 allege multiple violations of TILA’s implementing regulations, contained in Title 12 of the Code 2 of Federal Regulations (“Regulation Z”). Primarily, they claim that Defendants failed 3 adequately to disclose (1) the cost of credit, presumably expressed as an APR, (2) that negative 4 amortization was certain to occur if Plaintiffs followed the Payment Schedule; and (3) the effect 5 of the payment cap on the cost of the loan. Plaintiffs also allege that by failing adequately to 6 make the foregoing disclosures, Defendants committed fraud as well as unlawful, unfair, and 7 fraudulent business practices in violation of § 17200 of the California Business and Professions 8 Code. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that, by failing to apply each payment to “principal and interest,” 9 Defendants breached both the express terms of the Note and the implied covenant of good faith 10 and fair dealing contained in every contract under California law. Plaintiffs seek an award of 11 statutory damages on behalf of a putative nationwide class, and a “reallocation” of allegedly 12 improper additions to Plaintiffs’ and the putative class members’ principal balances–in effect 13 reversing any negative amortization that may have occurred. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 15 A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a 16 clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 17 Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show 18 either “(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable 19 injury, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its 20 favor.” Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201 21 (9th Cir. 1980). These “two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the 22 required degree of irreparable harm increases as the possibility of success decreases.” Oakland 23 Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). 24 “Regardless of how the test for a preliminary injunction is phrased, the moving party 25 must demonstrate irreparable harm.” American Passage Media Corp. v. Cass Commc’ns, Inc., 26 750 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1985) (reversing grant of preliminary injunction because movant 27 failed to offer evidence of irreparable harm). It is not enough that the claimed harm be 28 irreparable; it also must be imminent. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 4 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988); Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum, 634 F.2d at 1201. “A plaintiff must do 2 more than merely allege imminent harm . . . ; a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened 3 injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.” Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., 844 F.2d 4 at 674. This threat must be shown by probative evidence, Bell Atl. Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Storage 5 Tech. Corp., No. C-94-0235, 1994 WL 125173, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 1994) (denying 6 preliminary injunction motion because movant failed to show sufficient evidence of threat of 7 irreparable harm), and conclusory affidavits are insufficient. American Passage, 750 F.2d at 8 1473; see also K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., 467 F.2d 1087, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 1972). 9 In addition, where injunctive relief is sought on a class-wide basis, the moving party 10 must prove that (1) the named plaintiffs face imminent, irreparable harm, and (2) there is reason 11 to believe that the putative class members face the same harm. Angotti v. Rexam, Inc., No. C 12 05-5264 CW, 2006 WL 1646135, at *14-15 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2006).4 Finally, any 13 preliminary injunction “must be narrowly tailored . . . to remedy only the specific harms shown 14 by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of 15 Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 728 n.1 16 (9th Cir. 1983)). 17 18 III. DISCUSSION A. Irreparable Harm 19 Plaintiffs, on behalf of the absent class members, assert two forms of irreparable harm: 20 (1) a purportedly imminent risk of foreclosure; and (2) the risk that if foreclosed upon, Plaintiffs 21 will lose their right under TILA to rescind their loans. With respect to the first contention, 22 Plaintiffs are correct that foreclosure under certain circumstances may constitute irreparable 23 harm. See, e.g., Nichols v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., Civ. No. 07-2039-L(NLS), 2007 WL 24 4181111, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2007) (noting that “the imminent foreclosure of Plaintiff’s 25 4 26 27 28 While there is no directly controlling authority on this point, the court in Angotti followed the Second Circuit’s approach in LaForest v. Former Clean Air Holding Co., 376 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2004), concluding that such an approach was “consistent with the approach so far taken by the Ninth Circuit.” Angotti, 2006 WL 1646135, at *15 (discussing Beltran v. Meyers, 677 F.2d 1317, 1322 (9th Cir. 1982)). 5 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 residence presents a threat of irreparable harm,” and citing Sundance Land Corp. v. Comty First 2 Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 840 F.2d 653, 661 (9th Cir.1988)). However, whether a particular 3 foreclosure constitutes irreparable harm turns in part on the reasons for foreclosure. See Parker 4 v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 879 F.2d 1362, 1367-68 (6th Cir. 1989) (finding that foreclosure did not 5 constitute irreparable harm where borrower declined to avail itself of remedies offered by 6 lender); see also Alcaraz v. Wachovia Mortgage FSB, No. CV F 08-1640 LJO, 2009 WL 30297, 7 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2009) (denying motion for preliminary injunction because while the 8 “loss of a home is a serious injury[,] . . . . the record suggests that Ms. Alcaraz sought a loan 9 beyond her financial means and expectation of job loss[,] . . . [and the] resulting harm does not 10 alone entitle her to injunctive relief”). 11 Consistent with the foregoing, Plaintiffs must link the allegedly deceptive loan 12 documents at issue in this case to the likelihood that they will default and suffer foreclosure. 13 Plaintiffs attempt to do so by reference to the subject loans’ recasting provisions. As explained 14 above, recasting involves a re-amortization of the remaining principal balance when that balance 15 reaches a certain limit. The loans in question contain a balance cap set at either 110% or 125%. 16 When a loan reaches that percentage, presumably as a result of negative amortization, the 17 remaining principal is re-amortized and paid off in equal monthly installments over the 18 remaining term of the loan. Recasting overrides any payment cap included in the loan and 19 therefore may result in a sudden increase in the payment amount. Plaintiffs postulate that such 20 payment increases impair a borrower’s ability to make monthly payments and thus increase the 21 incidence of foreclosures. 22 While Plaintiffs’ theory is a plausible one, there is a paucity of evidence in the record 23 that (1) the named Plaintiffs’ loans are expected to recast in the near future, or (2) the putative 24 class will experience recasting in significant numbers. Cf. Angotti v. Rexam, Inc., No. C 25 05-5264 CW, 2006 WL 1646135, at *14-15 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2006). With respect to the 26 named Plaintiffs, it appears that none of their loans will recast until 2013 at the earliest, 27 28 6 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 assuming current interest rates. See Roberts Decl. ¶ 13.5 With respect to the putative class, 2 Plaintiffs have pointed to generalized evidence that foreclosures are rising in number. See Pls.’ 3 Reply at 3:14-18 (citing Defendants’ financial statements, Scholz Decl., Ex. A, Pt. 2, at 29-30). 4 However, Defendants have presented sworn declarations stating that (1) between November 5 2007 and November 2008, only nine of Defendants’ Pick-a-Pay loans recast as a result of 6 reaching their balance cap, and (2) in 2009, only 27 out of approximately 270,000 loans will 7 recast for the same reason. Plaintiffs fail to rebut this showing in their reply papers and 8 supporting materials.6 In light of that failure, and given the generality of Plaintiffs’ initial 9 evidence, the current record provides an inadequate basis for granting the sweeping injunction 10 that Plaintiffs seek. 11 Plaintiffs also fail to demonstrate the likelihood of imminent, irreparable harm as a result 12 of the loss of their rescission rights upon foreclosure. Plaintiffs are correct that foreclosure, 13 even though involuntary, is a “sale” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) and 12 C.F.R. § 14 226.23(a)(3), and terminates TILA’s extended three-year rescission period. See Hallas v. 15 Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1183 (D. Or. 2005) (holding that “foreclosure 16 sale has terminated Plaintiff’s right of rescission”); see also Marschner v. RJR Fin. Servs., Inc., 17 382 F. Supp. 2d 918, 921 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (observing that a “foreclosure sale would terminate 18 an unexpired right to rescind”). However, Plaintiffs either (1) allege violations that do not 19 appear to trigger an extended right of rescission, or (2) allege violations that may trigger such a 20 right, but as to which Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5 Plaintiffs have filed evidentiary objections to ¶ 12 of the declaration of Victoria Barone, which also attests to the above-referenced facts, but Plaintiffs do not contest the facts themselves. 6 After filing their reply but prior to oral argument, Plaintiffs filed four additional declarations in an attempt to demonstrate imminent, irreparable harm. These declarations contain evidence of a significant number of foreclosure proceedings instituted by Defendants and attest to the appalling hardship suffered by the individuals subject to foreclosure. However, the declarations provide no further link between the illegalities alleged in the complaint and the foreclosures themselves. See O’Tool, Golant, Mandel, and Berns Declarations, filed Jan. 15, 2009. Without such evidence, the Court cannot grant an injunction of the breadth Plaintiffs seek. 28 7 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 Only “material” violations of TILA, as set forth in 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3) & n.48, will 2 trigger the extended rescission period. Courts have explained that when a loan contains a 3 variable rate feature, TILA mandates two sets of disclosures: those set forth in 12 C.F.R. § 4 226.19(b)(1)-(2), which require disclosures with respect to negative amortization, and those set 5 forth in 226.18(f)(2), which require two statements prior to consummation of the loan 6 transaction: (1) “that the transaction contains a variable-rate feature;” and (2) “that variable-rate 7 disclosures have been provided earlier.” See Ngwa v. Castle Point Mortg., Inc., No. 08 Civ. 8 0859(AJP), 2008 WL 3891263, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2008) (emphasis added) (citing 15 9 U.S.C. § 1635(f), 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3), and Pulphus v. Sullivan, No. 02 C 5794, 2003 WL 10 11 1964333, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2003)). 13 [O]nly the second set of disclosures are considered “material disclosures” which, if not provided before consummation of the transaction, will trigger the extended rescission period. Failure to provide the first set of variable-rate disclosures, while still a violation of the statute, “may subject [the lender] to other sanctions, but it will not extend the rescission period granted to the consumer.” 14 Id. (quoting Pulphus, 2003 WL 1964333, at *14 ); see also Pulphus, 2003 WL 1964333, at *14 15 (“The plain meaning of the Board’s commentary on 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3) is that only one 16 variable rate disclosure violation–a lender’s failure to disclose the existence of a variable rate 17 feature–tolls the rescission period.”); Federal Reserve Board Staff Commentary, 12 C.F.R. Pt. 18 226, Supp. I, cmt. § 226.23 (“Footnote 48 sets forth the material disclosures that must be 19 provided before the rescission period can begin to run. Failure to provide information regarding 20 the annual percentage rate also includes failure to inform the consumer of the existence of a 21 variable rate feature. Failure to give the other required disclosures does not prevent the running 22 of the rescission period, although that failure may result in civil liability or administrative 23 sanctions.”).7 12 24 25 26 27 28 7 TILA is implemented by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (“FRB”) through regulations found in 12 C.F.R. § 226 and through the FRB’s Official Staff Commentary (“Commentary”). The Commentary is binding on all lenders, and compliance with it shields an issuer from civil liability pursuant to TILA’s safe-harbor provision. See 15 § U.S.C. 1640(f); see also 12 C.F.R. Pt. 226, Supp. I-1 (“Good faith compliance with this commentary affords protection from liability under 130(f) of the Truth in Lending Act”). 8 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 In the instant case, while Plaintiffs dispute the adequacy of the first set of disclosures, 2 particularly with respect to negative amortization, they do not contend that Defendants failed to 3 provide the two statements required by 226.18(f)(2). Thus, even if Plaintiffs were to succeed in 4 showing that Defendants failed to provide adequate disclosures of negative amortization, it 5 appears that this failure would not trigger a right of rescission.8 6 Plaintiffs argue that regardless of whether Defendants’ alleged failure to disclose the 7 certainty of negative amortization is a “material” violation, “it is beyond question that 8 [Defendants’] misstatements of the APR” are capable of tolling the statutory rescission period. 9 Plaintiffs are correct that inadequate or misleading disclosure of the APR may constitute a 10 material violation triggering the extended rescission period. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3) n.48; 11 Ljepava v. M.L.S.C. Properties, Inc., 511 F.2d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 1975) (holding that three-day 12 rescission period was tolled where defendants’ disclosures understated the APR). However, as 13 explained below, Defendants are unlikely to prevail on any claim with respect to disclosure of 14 the APR.9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Defendants argue that Ngwa and Pulphus are inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit’s holdings in Ljepava v. M.L.S.C. Properties, Inc., 511 F.2d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 1975) and Semar v. Platte Valley Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 791 F.2d 699, 703-04 (9th Cir. 1986). As discussed below, Ljepava authorized rescission on the basis of an APR violation, which, if proven, clearly does trigger TILA’s extended rescission period. With respect to Semar, the Ninth Circuit did state generally that “[t]echnical or minor violations of TILA or Reg Z, as well as major violations, impose liability on the creditor and entitle the borrower to rescind.” Semar, 791 F.2d at 703-04. However, Semar involved the lender’s wholesale omission on the loan forms of the date from which TILA’s three-day rescission period would run. Because the Federal Reserve Board’s Staff Commentary stated explicitly that such an omission triggered TILA’s extended rescission period, Williamson v. Lafferty, 698 F.2d 767, 768-69 (5th Cir. 1983) (“[F]ailure properly to complete the right to rescission form automatically violates the Act, without reference to the materiality standard[,] [because] . . . . the applicable regulation makes clear that failure to fill in the expiration date of the rescission form is a violation of the TILA.”) (citing 12 C.F.R. § 226.9(b) (1982)), the court authorized rescission without reference to materiality. Semar, 791 F.2d at 704. In any event, a right of rescission based on Defendants’ allegedly inadequate disclosure of negative amortization is sufficiently doubtful that it cannot serve as the basis for the broad injunction that Plaintiffs seek. 9 Even if Plaintiffs ultimately could demonstrate–in some other lawsuit–a right to rescind their individual loans, they cannot and do not seek such relief in this action. See, e.g., Andrews v. 9 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 B. 2 Likelihood of success on claims giving rise to a protectable right of rescission Because Plaintiffs must show an imminent likelihood of irreparable harm under either 3 test for a preliminary injunction, and because, as explained above, it appears that Plaintiffs may 4 do so only by showing an APR violation giving rise to a protectable right of rescission, the 5 Court will limit its discussion to the alleged APR violations. For several reasons, Plaintiffs are 6 highly unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims with respect to disclosure of the APR. 7 As a result, they cannot show irreparable harm in the form of potentially forfeited rescission 8 rights. 9 As Defendants observed in their motion to dismiss the operative Second (Corrected) 10 Amended Complaint (“SCAC”), Plaintiffs attack the adequacy of Defendants’ APR disclosures 11 only indirectly, referring to allegedly misleading “interest rate disclosures.” See Defs. Mot. to 12 Dismiss SCAC, at 13 n.20 (citing SCAC ¶¶ 68, 86-88). These allegations presumably rely on 13 one of two theories: that Defendants violated § 226.17(c) by failing to disclose a composite APR 14 applicable to the loans; or that Defendants violated § 226.19(b) by failing to disclose the true 15 cost of the loans in the form of an APR. With respect to the former claim, § 226.17(c) “simply 16 requires that the APR, which appears only on the [Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement], be a 17 composite rate rather than the . . . initial interest rate.” Plascencia v. Lending 1st Mortgage, No. 18 C 07-4485 CW, 2008 WL 1902698, *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2008). Where, as here, the loan 19 simply discloses such a rate on the TILDS, Courts uniformly have rejected this type of claim. 20 See Amparan v. Plaza Home Mortg., Inc., No. C 07-4498 JF, 2008 WL 5245497, at *10 (N.D. 21 Cal. Dec. 17, 2008); Plascencia, 2008 WL 1902698, at *7 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Chevy Chase Bank, 545 F. 3d 570, 578 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding that rescission may not be sought on a class-wide basis). In that respect, it is highly doubtful whether this Court would have jurisdiction to enter an injunction for the protection of rights not sought to be vindicated through this action. See, e.g., Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 728-29 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1983). While a proper, narrowly drawn injunction “may incidentally benefit” non-parties to an action, id. at 28 n.1 (quoting Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 472 F.2d 631, 633-34 (9th Cir.1972)), such an effect indeed must be “incidental” to relief actually sought and granted in the subject action. Id. (explaining that the broader “practical effect[s]” of an injunction “do[] not militate against the legal limitations that should be placed on the injunction). 10 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 A second possible theory is that alleged discrepancies between the “yearly” interest rate 2 listed in the subject notes and the APR listed in the TILDS created impermissible ambiguity and 3 confusion with respect to the actual cost of the loan. Numerous courts have rejected such a 4 claim. As the Fourth Circuit explained in Smith v. Anderson, the term “APR” has a meaning 5 distinct from that of “interest rate.” Because the APR “considers, by definition, a broader range 6 of finance charges when determining the total cost of credit as a yearly rate,” discrepancies 7 between the “interest rate” stated in a loan note and the APR stated on a TILDS are not 8 misleading. Smith v. Anderson, 801 F.2d 661, 663-64 (4th Cir. 1986); see also Mincey v. World 9 Savings Bank, FSB, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2008 WL 3845438, at *27 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2008); 10 Robinson v. First Franklin Fin. Corp., Civ. No. 05-6652, 2006 WL 2540777, at *4 (E.D. Pa. 11 April 31, 2006) (citing Smith, 801 F.2d at 663). This Court recently relied on Andrews v. Chevy 12 Chase Bank, FSB, 240 F.R.D. 612, 618-19 (E.D. Wis. 2007) to distinguish Smith, holding that 13 under certain circumstances a plaintiff may state a claim based on discrepancies between the 14 interest rate disclosed in the note and the APR disclosed in the TILDS. See Amparan, 2008 WL 15 5245497, at *6. However, as in Andrews, the Court permitted such a claim only because the 16 loan documents at issue referred exclusively to a low, initial “teaser” rate–a rate that would 17 apply for only thirty days and which therefore did not bear the relationship to the APR described 18 in Smith. Id. 19 In the instant case, the notes consistently stated the actual interest rate, not a low, initial 20 teaser rate. See, e.g., Yandel Decl. Exs. F, G, & K (Mandrigues notes dated April 7, 2004, April 21 18, 2005, and August 4, 2006, disclosing annual interest rates of 4.763%, 5.486%, 6.790%, 22 respectively); Roberts Decl., Ex. B, at 1-3 (Mandrigues TILDS for loans dated April 7, 2004, 23 April 18, 2005, and August 4, 2006, disclosing APRs of 4.929%, 5.578%, and 6.846%, 24 respectively); SCAC, Ex. 2 (Jones note and TILDS, indicating interest rate of 7.681% and APR 25 of 7.877%, respectively), Ex. 3 (Minyen note and TILDS, indicating interest rate of 5.190% and 26 APR of 5.331%, respectively); Ex. 4 (Clauson note and TILDS, indicating interest rate of 27 5.320% and APR of 5.469%, respectively). Any “perceived discrepancy [between the interest 28 rate disclosed in the note and that provided as the APR on the TILDS] arises. . . from the 11 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 lender’s compliance with the truth-in-lending requirements.” Smith, 801 F.2d at 663. 2 Accordingly, Plaintiffs lack a viable claim for APR disclosure violations and a corresponding 3 right to rescission. Because the loss of a right that Plaintiffs do not enjoy cannot constitute 4 irreparable harm, Plaintiffs have failed to show an entitlement to the “extraordinary and drastic 5 remedy” of preliminary injunctive relief. Munaf v. Geren, 128 S.Ct. 2207, 2210 (2008). 6 C. 7 Balance of hardships Even if a plaintiff succeeds in showing some level of imminent, irreparable harm, the 8 “extraordinary” nature of preliminary injunctive relief nonetheless requires that courts “balance 9 the competing claims of injury and . . . consider the effect on each party of the granting or 10 withholding of the requested relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 11 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (quoting Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)). 12 In the instant case, Plaintiffs argue that the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor 13 because foreclosures would cause “human suffering” while the requested injunction merely 14 would “maintain the status quo.” See Pls.’ Reply at 7:4-13. Defendants counter that 15 notwithstanding their retention of a security interest and ultimate right of foreclosure on any 16 mortgages subject to the proposed injunction, that injunction would remove “one of the few 17 incentives for borrowers to make payments where home values have fallen precipitously.” 18 Defs.’ Opp. at 14:25-26. The injunction purportedly would jeopardize payments on interest 19 amounting to approximately $727 million per month–Defendants’ primary source of revenue. 20 Hairr Decl. ¶ 4. In addition, Defendants assert that pursuant to federal lending regulations, the 21 loans’ non-accrual status would trigger a series of increasingly severe accounting adjustments 22 depriving Defendants of much of their operational revenue. Hairr Decl. ¶¶ 5-13. 23 Plaintiffs fail to address any of the foregoing arguments, repeating only that the instant 24 case presents a straightforward “conflict between financial concerns and preventable human 25 suffering” which must be resolved in Plaintiffs’ favor. Pls.’ Reply at 7:8-11 (quoting Rodde v. 26 Bonta, 357 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2004)). However, given the extremely broad nature of the 27 injunctive relief sought and the very substantial portion of Defendants’ assets potentially subject 28 to the requested class-wide injunction, the Court finds this to be a rare case in which financial 12 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 considerations might well tip the balance of hardships in Defendants’ favor, even if Plaintiffs 2 could show some imminent likelihood of irreparable harm to themselves and the class members. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied. 5 Moreover, because considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in favor of a stay pending 6 the JPML’s transfer decision, and because the countervailing interest in protecting Plaintiffs 7 from potentially irreparable harm has proven illusory, the Court will order the instant action 8 stayed pending a decision by the JPML. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification will be 9 terminated without prejudice, and may be re-noticed following and in accordance with the 10 JPML’s decision. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED 13 14 DATED: 1/20/09 15 JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 This Order has been served upon the following persons: Alicia Anne Adornato AAdornato@reedsmith.com David M. Arbogast darbogast@law111.com, jkerr@law111.com Jack R. Nelson jnelson@reedsmith.com, cahunt@reedsmith.com Jeffrey K Berns jberns@law111.com, staff@jeffbernslaw.com Jonathan Shub jshub@seegerweiss.com, atorres@seegerweiss.com Keith David Yandell kyandell@reedsmith.com, dkelley@reedsmith.com Michael C Eyerly eyerly@kbla.com Michael J. Quirk mquirk@wcblegal.com Patrick DeBlase deblase@kbla.com Paul R. Kiesel Kiesel@kbla.com, cgarcia@kbla.com Notice has been delivered by other means to: 10 11 12 13 14 Mark R. Cuker Williams Cuker Berezofsky 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd Suite 800 Philiadelphia, PA 19103 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 Case No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ENTERING STAY (JFLC3)

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.