Agomuoh et al v. The PNC Financial Services Group Inc. et al, No. 8:2016cv01939 - Document 16 (D. Md. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/5/2017. (c/m 7/5/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Agomuoh et al v. The PNC Financial Services Group Inc. et al Doc. 16 I •. IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TilE J)JSTRICT OF MARYLAND SOllthem IJi\'i.,"ioll EI\Ii\IANUEL AGOMUOII, e( ;11., ~ _r f ~ ~, .. * Plaintiffs, * Case No.: G.IH-16-1939 \". * THE PNC FINANCIAL GROUP, t'f :II., SERVICES * Defendants. * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM * * * * * * OPINION Plaintiffs Emmanuel Agomuoh and Nene Ross initiated this pro.l'e action against Defendants the PNC Financial Services Group ("PNC"). the Federal Ilome Loan Mortgage Corporation ("'Freddie Mac"). and the Alba Law Group. P.A. (collectively. "Defendants") alleging various statutory and common law claims relating to Plaintiffs' home m0l1gage loan. Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider its Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ("Opinion"). No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6. For the tiJllowing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 14. is denied. I. BACKGROUND The background facts of this case were fully set t()rth in the Opinion. ECF No. 12 at 1-5.1 In the Complaint. Plaintiffs alleged state law claims of negligence. l('audulent concealment. civil conspiracy. as well as statutory violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. 12 1 Pin cites to doculllents tiled (lilthe Court"s electronic filing system (Crv1/ECF) refer to the page Ilumbers gCllcmlcd by that system. Dockets.Justia.com * U.S.c. Law Law * * 2601 elself. ("'RESPA"). the Maryland Consumer 14-201 el self. ("'MCDCA "). the Maryland 13-301 else,!- ("MCPA"'J. Debt Colleetion Consumer Protection and the Fair Debt Collection Act. Md. Code Com. Act. Md. Code Com. Practices Act. 15 U.S.c. * 1692 el se,f. ("'FDCI' A"). See ECF NO.1. The C01ll1 assessed each of Plaintiffs' holding that Plaintiffs cause of action. ECF No. 12 at 15-26. had failed to state a cognizable Alier the entry of judgment. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs moved fi)r reconsideration. arguing. illler alia. that "do not owe a debt to PNC and thus there existed no valid right for [PNCI to collect the debt notwithstanding a default:' and the Court "impermissibly" PNC was both the owner and holder of the Note:' misconstrued and applied the pleading as against Alba Law Group as Substitute overlooked" allegations Reconsideration. extraordinary claim too fix the existence failed to allege a dual-tracking in opposition ECF No. 15. Because Plaintiffs have identified to Plaintiffs' of a legal duty violation or under Motion for no basis to invoke the the Motion shall be denied. DISCUSSION Rule 59( e) allows a party to Ii Ie a motion to alter or amend a judgment days alier the entry of the judgment. G.III-11-3039. 2016 WL 3430673. burden of unnecessary appellate at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 16. 2016). One purpose of Rule 59(e) is to proceedings (4th Cir. 1998). However. no later than 28 red. R. Civ. P. 59(e): see also Ford \'. Vlliled Slales. No. "permit a district court to correct its own errors. 'sparing 396.403 that id at II. and the Court "misapprehended Trustee:' have responded remedy of reconsideration. the conclusion of a state law negligence other asserted grounds in finding that Plaintiffs RESPA. id at 15-18. Defendants "reached ECF No. 14 at 3-8 ... the Court has requirements id at 9 ... the Court o\'erlooked narrowly:' II. nine claims. ultimately the parties and the appellate coul1s the .... ['ae. IllS. Co. "reconsideration 2 l'. ofajudgment Am. Nal. Fire 111.1'. Co.. 148 F.3d alier its entry is an extraordinary rcmcdy which should bc uscd sparingly:' /'ac Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403 (citation omittcd). A Rulc 59(c) motion "may not bc uscd to rclitigate old matters. or to raisc argumcnts or prcscnt evidcncc that could havc been raised prior to thc cntry of judgment:' !d. (citation omittcd). "[Mjere disagreement" with thc court's ruling docs not support a motion to altcr or amend thc judgmcnt. Ilutchinson I'. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076. 1082 (4th Cir. 1993). Such Iimitations are ncccssary becausc ,,[w Jere it othcrwise. thcn there would be no conclusion to motions practice. cach motion bccoming nothing more than the latcst installment in a potentially endless serial that would exhaust the resourccs of thc parties and the court-not to mcntion its patience:' /'inney \'. Nokia. Inc.. 402 F.3d 430. 453 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting /'ol/er I'. /'ol/er, 199 F.R.D. 550. 553 (D. Md. 2001 )). The Fourth Circuit recognizes only threc grounds on which a court may alter or amend an earlier judgment: ..( I) to accommodatc an intervcning change in controlling law: (2) to account for new cvidcnce not a\'ailable at trial: or (3) to correct a c1car error of law or prevent manifest injustice:' United States ex rei. Becker \'. WestinKhouse Sa\,((III/lihRh'er Co .. 305 F,3d 284. 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing I'(/c. Ins. CO. I'. Alii. Nal 'I Fire Ins. Co .. 148 F.3d 396.403 (4th Cir. 1998)), "Clcar error or manifest injustice occurs where a court 'has patently misundcrstood a party. or has madc a decision outside the adversarial issues prescntcd to thc Court by thc parties. or has madc an crror not of rcasoning but of apprehcnsion ' , ,... WaKner I'. Warden. No. ELiI. 14.791. 2016 WL 1169937. at *3 (D. Md, Mar. 24. 2(16) (quoting KinK v. McFadden. 2015 WL 4937292. at *2 (D.S.C. August 18,2015)); see also TFWS. Inc. I'. Franchot. 572 F,3d 186. 194 (4th Cir. 2009) ("A prior decision does not quality for this third exception by bcingjust maybc or probably wrong: it must strikc us as wrong with the fi)rce of a fivc.week.old. unrcli'igerated dead fish,") (internal citations and altcrations omitted), , .' In the Motion for Reconsideration. controlling Plaintiff:, do not allege any intervening law. nor do they contend that new evidence that "the Court committed a Itmdamental ofthc Complaint or holder of their loan .. ,'. ECF No. 14 at I. Contrary Court expressly of the Notc and standing. that the MCDCA. much less identilya Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs assertions. contentions regarding the dismissal negligence did not owe tort duties to Plaintiffs. duty to their customers," a tort duty). Moreover. In the reconsideration of judgment. of their negligence claims also lili!. In the See ECI' No. 12 at 15-16: Spau/din}!. \'. Wells and absent speeial circumstances. 18-20. Plaintiffs' a private right of action under the llome Affordable plaintiffs had claims lailed as a matter of law because the Court linmd that Plaintiffs RESPA. See ECI' No. 12 at 15-16. preclude the arguments claims. See ECF No. 12 at 21-26. Far}!.oBank. NA .. 714 F.3d 769. 778-79 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that "[blanks bave a liduciary howc\'er. do not address their pleading deficiencies. "clear error of law" warranting the Court linmd Plaintiffs' Delendants that PNC was not the owncr See ECF No. 12 at 13-15. Rather. the Court Itmnd of the respective Motion for Reconsideration. Opinion. to Plaintiffs' a hotly disputed MCPA. and FDCPA claims failed as a matter of law because Plaintiffs lailed to plead the requisite elements Plaintiffs' ... to determine stated that it was not granting the motion to dismiss based on PNes about ownership in has come to light. Rather. Plaintiffs assert error. in that it proceeded lactual issuc that was central to the allegations changes li'om raising state law c1aims2 - typically do not declining lailed to allege an actionable newly-minted Modification argument - to impose violation of that the lack of Program (IIAMP) does not is neither hclpltil to their claims. nor proper , Plaintiff, cite .~i","ldillg \'. lI'ells Fargo Balik. N ..I.. 714 F.3d 769. 776. n.4 (4th Cir. 2013) for this proposition. The Spaulding court clearly rejected the argulllent that banks owe fiduciary duties to their customers absent special circumstances. The court further reasoned that even assuming that banks owe customers a duty to process HAJ'vlP applications wilh reasonable carc. "mere disagreement \l.:jth ho\v [the bankl conducted the application process does not give [plaintiffs] enforceable rights'" 1<1.fl.5. Further. as was the case in Spaulding. Plaintiffs here have failed to allege a breach in the standard of care attributable to Defendants. See id n.4. 4 upon a motion to reconsider. See Pac. Ins. Co. 1'. Am. Nal. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396.404 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that "Rule 59(e) may not be used to raise new arguments or present novel legal theories that could have been raised prior to judgment."). Indeed, nothing in Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration establishes a clear error of law in the Court's previous dismissal of Plaintiffs' negligence claims. To the extent that Plaintiffs further object to the Court's findings on the RESPA claim regarding "dual-tracking:" Plaintiffs merely disagree with the Court. See ECF No. 14 at 16-18. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs" Motion for Reconsideration is denied. A separate Order shall issue. Date: Julv 7 /vi/- ,2017 GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge 5
]]>
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.
