WEN v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.

Background

Di Wen alleged that she owned a property in Union City, California, and had a home-equity line of credit associated with it. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. later assigned the loan to RRA CP Opportunity Trust 1, and Real Time Resolutions, Inc. became the current servicer. A recorded assignment showed that the loan had been sold no later than May 19, 2017.

Wen alleged that she did not receive periodic loan statements or information about the payments she needed to make. After a notice of default and a notice of trustee sale were recorded in 2021, she sued GreenPoint, Real Time Resolutions, and the Trust. Her complaint asserted six claims: fraud, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, unfair competition under California law, and unjust enrichment.

The case was initially filed in California state court and was later removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The federal court had granted Wen a temporary restraining order blocking a scheduled foreclosure sale, but later denied her request for a preliminary injunction. GreenPoint then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim.

Statute-of-limitations ruling

The court held that five claims against GreenPoint were barred by the applicable filing deadlines: three years for fraud, four years for breach of written contract and breach of the implied covenant, one year for a Rosenthal Act claim, and four years for unfair competition. Because GreenPoint had transferred its interest in the loan by May 19, 2017, and Wen did not file the complaint until August 17, 2021, the court concluded that these claims were filed outside the applicable limitations periods.

Wen argued that the continuing-violation doctrine delayed the start of the filing deadlines because she continued to suffer harm from not receiving periodic statements until April 2021. The court explained that the cases Wen cited applied the doctrine in the employment-discrimination context and that the doctrine is generally confined to civil-rights actions. The court further ruled that, even assuming the doctrine could apply, Wen had not alleged new violations by GreenPoint after it transferred its interest in the loan. The continuing effects of an earlier alleged violation were not enough, and each alleged failure to provide a statement was a separate act.

The court also rejected equitable tolling and the discovery rule. Equitable tolling can extend a deadline when a plaintiff cannot obtain important information despite due diligence. The discovery rule can delay accrual until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the claim. The court found that Wen’s complaint did not say when the statements stopped or allege that she had tried to obtain information from GreenPoint or the other defendants. The court therefore ruled that neither doctrine saved the five claims.

Unjust-enrichment ruling and disposition

The court ruled that unjust enrichment is not an independent cause of action under California law. It described unjust enrichment as a general principle underlying other legal doctrines and remedies, and stated that it is synonymous with restitution. Because Wen had no other viable claim against GreenPoint, the court held that her unjust-enrichment theory could not stand on its own.

The court granted GreenPoint’s motion to dismiss and dismissed all of Wen’s claims against GreenPoint with prejudice. The order stated that it disposed of GreenPoint’s motion, Docket No. 25.