Sudder v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank

Background

Jean Marie Carozza Sudder filed the case without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. She alleged that, during a 2000 mortgage refinancing, bank representatives sent a letter seeking to change the loan note after documents had been prepared for signatures. She and her husband ignored the letter.

Sudder alleged that, beginning in 2008 or 2009, she applied several times for a loan modification but was told she could not be helped because she had never signed the mortgage documents. After obtaining copies of documents years later, she believed that documents had been forged or altered, including by voiding one note, creating another, and blocking out her name on a third. She also alleged that the bank ignored her questions and denied her request to show the documents to a higher authority.

The complaint referred to New York General Business Law § 349, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), New York Penal Law § 170, postal regulations, and civil-rights laws. The opinion also noted that Sudder had brought a substantially similar earlier case involving the mortgage foreclosure and later withdrew it after stating that a bankruptcy judge had addressed her complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Sudder could not use this civil action to initiate the arrest or criminal prosecution of JPMorgan. Decisions about whether to prosecute are left to prosecutors, not private individuals or courts acting at a private litigant’s direction.

The court construed the mortgage-servicing allegations as asserting a claim under RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2605. RESPA requires a loan servicer to respond within specified time limits to a borrower’s qualified written request, investigate the request, and correct the account or provide a written explanation when appropriate. The court concluded that Sudder was not alleging that JPMorgan failed to respond to such a request. Instead, her allegations concerned whether she had signed the loan documents, whether her documents had been forged, and whether the bank therefore treated her as someone who was not a borrower and denied her modification request.

The court further stated that any RESPA claim was untimely on the face of the complaint. Assuming Sudder learned of the alleged violation in 2014, she waited seven years to file this case, even though the statute gives three years to bring a RESPA claim. The court therefore concluded that the complaint did not state a plausible claim for relief.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It denied leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment and Sudder could not state a federal RESPA claim. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims she might be asserting.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Sudder and terminate all motions, including JPMorgan’s motion to dismiss. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.