Francis v. Accubanc Mortgage Corporation
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-00902
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Francis v. Accubanc Mortgage Corporation, Judge Nathan denied the pro se plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion and denied fee-free appeal status.
Michael and Carmen Francis were denied reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of their complaint. The defendants’ earlier dismissal remained in place, and the plaintiffs were denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Francis v. Accubanc Mortgage Corporation involved Michael and Carmen Francis’s request to revisit the court’s earlier dismissal of their New York-law claims arising from a mortgage foreclosure. The earlier ruling dismissed their complaint with prejudice and denied their request for default judgment.
The plaintiffs argued that clerical mistakes, newly discovered evidence, and fraud on the court justified changing the earlier decision. The court rejected each argument, finding no qualifying clerical error, no material evidence that could not previously have been presented, and no legally supported fraud.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Francis v. Accubanc Mortgage Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-00902
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 4, 2021
Background
Michael and Carmen Francis, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a New York State-law action related to the foreclosure of their mortgage. The defendants were Accubanc Mortgage Corporation, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, EMC Mortgage LLC, and Fannie Mae. The defendants removed the case from New York state court to federal court.
The plaintiffs moved for default judgment against Chase, EMC, and Fannie Mae. The defendants separately moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 30, 2020, the court denied the default-judgment motion and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court held that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by res judicata, a rule generally preventing a party from relitigating claims resolved in an earlier case, and that the claims also failed as a matter of law. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice because it concluded that amendment would be futile.
The plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration of that ruling.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. It generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent serious injustice. The court also considered the plaintiffs’ reliance on Rules 60(a), 60(b), and 60(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes so that an order accurately reflects the decision the court actually made. Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, qualifying newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other exceptional circumstances. Rule 60(d) recognizes the court’s authority to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
Analysis
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ clerical-error argument because they did not identify a mistake that would affect whether the earlier order accurately reflected the court’s decision. The court understood the plaintiffs to be referring to problems with filing exhibits or other supporting materials, but found that they did not explain how those issues justified relief under Rule 60(a).
The plaintiffs identified a certificate showing that EMC Mortgage Corporation had filed a certificate of termination in 2011. The court found that the plaintiffs did not explain why they could not have located or filed the certificate before the earlier motions were fully briefed. The court also found that they did not show the certificate or other referenced evidence was material—that is, important enough that it probably would have changed the result. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the evidence showed an attorney lacked authority to respond for EMC or successor entities, calling that theory legally baseless and irrelevant to the earlier dismissal, including the res judicata analysis.
The court also rejected the claim of fraud on the court. It explained that this doctrine is limited to fraud that seriously affects the ordinary integrity of the judicial process. The plaintiffs argued that Richard Haber committed fraud by claiming to represent EMC. The court found that the plaintiffs’ assertion that EMC was a defunct entity did not establish fraud and that the plaintiffs had not presented a legally grounded fraud theory.
Ruling
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and stated that the remaining arguments were also meritless. The order resolved the reconsideration motion identified as Docket No. 76. The court ordered the Clerk to mail the order to the pro se plaintiffs and record that mailing on the public docket.
The court also found under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.