Mongiello v. Indymac Bank

Background

Christopher M. Mongiello, representing himself without a lawyer, sued Indymac Bank, F.S.B. He sought money damages, a declaration of his rights, costs, a default judgment, and other relief, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and its implementing regulations, known as Regulation X.

After the court previously ordered Mongiello to file a complaint with facts supporting his legal standing—the requirement that a person show a sufficient connection to the dispute—he filed an amended complaint that named his father, Americo Mongiello, as an additional plaintiff. Mongiello later filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The requested emergency relief apparently concerned a pending property sale and alleged demands for payment connected to an Indymac lien.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the same standard to both requested forms of emergency relief. Mongiello had to show either a likelihood of success on the claims or sufficiently serious legal questions for litigation combined with a hardship balance strongly favoring him. He also had to show a likelihood of irreparable harm and that the public interest would not be harmed by an injunction.

The court concluded that the amended complaint and emergency motion did not meet that demanding standard. First, the amended complaint did not materially change the court’s earlier concerns about Mongiello’s standing. Mongiello appeared to rely on an alleged assignment of rights, but he did not explain the assignment’s details. The court said that general permission to sue, without an assignment transferring ownership of the claim, does not establish standing.

The court also treated Christopher Mongiello as the only current plaintiff. Although the amended complaint named Americo Mongiello, it was unclear whether the father participated in preparing the filings, and the documents appeared to have been submitted and signed by Christopher. A person representing himself may represent only himself, not another plaintiff. The court also noted that Americo Mongiello had not completed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court stated that the deficiency could be addressed if each man personally signed the amended complaint with handwritten signatures, rather than using the partial electronic signatures appearing in the filings.

The court further found that the filings contained little supporting evidence. The attachments included one page that appeared to be part of a quitclaim deed, an insurance schedule for the property, and a notarized acknowledgment, but the court found these materials insufficient to support emergency relief.

The court also addressed allegations concerning Shellpoint. Shellpoint was not named as a defendant in the amended complaint and had previously been voluntarily dismissed. To the extent Mongiello sought relief based on Shellpoint’s conduct, the court found that he had not shown a likelihood of holding Indymac responsible for that conduct.

Finally, the court questioned whether Mongiello had shown irreparable harm. It found that the asserted harm involving the property sale appeared capable of being remedied with money damages. The court also found the alleged risk of incarceration conclusory and unsupported by sufficient details. It determined that no hearing was needed because the motion could be resolved on the written filings.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Christopher Mongiello’s Emergency Motion. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at Docket Number 59. The order addressed the request for emergency relief and did not determine the ultimate merits of the alleged Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act violations.