Wang v. Bank of America Corporation

Background

Hao Zhe Wang, representing himself, sued Bank of America Corporation and Specialized Loan Servicing LLC. His claims concern an unsuccessful attempt to refinance a mortgage, the handling of mortgage payments, collection of loan-related fees, and reporting of the loan as delinquent. His amended complaint asserted claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, promissory fraud, breach of contract, violations of New York General Business Law § 349, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In a prior order, the court granted in part and denied in part Bank of America’s motion to dismiss, denied Specialized Loan Servicing’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, and allowed Wang to amend his complaint. The court dismissed Wang’s claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, promissory fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Claims under New York General Business Law § 349 against both defendants and claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against Specialized Loan Servicing were allowed to proceed. This opinion addressed only Wang’s request for a preliminary injunction.

Wang’s Request

Wang asked the court to order Bank of America to promptly deliver his mortgage payments to Newrez. He also asked the court to order Newrez to withdraw negative reports about his loan from credit-reporting agencies and pause such reporting until the case was decided.

Wang argued that the payment and reporting issues had damaged his credit score and threatened his ability to buy an apartment on favorable terms. He also described anxiety and mental distress related to his inability to purchase a larger home.

Legal Standard

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary court order issued before final judgment. The person requesting one must clearly show four things: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the order, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest. Irreparable harm means an actual and imminent injury that money damages cannot adequately repair. The court stated that this requirement must be satisfied before the other requirements can be considered.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Wang had not shown irreparable harm. First, Wang did not establish that he could not obtain a loan or purchase a home because of his credit score. The court noted that he had been shopping for an apartment, had submitted offers for two cooperative apartments, had an offer accepted for one, and was exploring financing options. The court also noted that his credit score had increased when his payment was credited as current.

Second, the court found that Wang’s request concerning negative credit reports was moot because Specialized Loan Servicing had credited the June 2024 payment and updated the credit reporting to show that Wang had been current through the present. Because the negative reporting had been corrected, the court concluded that there was no ongoing conduct for it to enjoin and no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation would recur.

Third, the court concluded that any financial losses from unfavorable loan terms or other expenses could potentially be compensated with money damages. That meant those losses did not establish irreparable harm. The court also found that Wang’s unexplained delay in seeking emergency relief undermined his claim that the harm was urgent and irreparable. He filed the motion two days after the court’s prior order on the motions to dismiss, despite knowing about the relevant reporting and housing concerns earlier.

Disposition

Because Wang failed to show irreparable harm, the court did not decide whether he was likely to succeed on his claims, whether the balance of hardships favored him, or whether an injunction would serve the public interest. Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Wang’s motion for a preliminary injunction and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Doc. 33.