Haber v. Credit One Bank, National Association

Background

David Martin Haber, who represented himself, sued Credit Sesame and Credit One Bank, N.A. He alleged violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, a federal statute, and state-law tort claims. Credit One and Credit Sesame separately moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for pretrial proceedings and for a report and recommendation on dispositive motions. Judge Gorenstein recommended dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety and not allowing Haber to amend it again.

Review of the Report and Recommendation

Haber filed a document titled “Demand Trial by Jury,” but it did not address the report and recommendation. He later filed a document titled “Opposition to Report and Recommendation.” The court held that the later filing was untimely because it was submitted more than six weeks after the deadline stated in the report and recommendation.

The court also held that, even if it considered the objections, they were general and conclusory rather than directed at particular findings. Haber repeated his assertions that the defendants were conspirators operating as a corrupt criminal enterprise, challenged the denial of his request for appointed volunteer counsel, accused the magistrate judge of bias, and disputed defense submissions. The court found that these assertions did not identify specific errors in the report and recommendation.

Because the objections were both untimely and insufficiently specific, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. It found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni adopted the report and recommendation in full. The court granted Credit One’s and Credit Sesame’s motions to dismiss, declined to extend Haber leave to amend his complaint, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions and the case.

The court noted that it had declined to exercise jurisdiction over Haber’s state-law claims without considering their merits, so the opinion states that he could bring those dismissed state claims in New York State court. The court also ruled that Haber’s failure to file adequate and specific objections precluded appellate review of the decision. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.