Holmes v. New Rez, LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-08632
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Holmes v. New Rez, LLC, Judge Briccetti granted dismissal of all claims, including the federal debt-collection claim and state-law claims.
Keith A. Holmes’s claims against New Rez, LLC, Shellpoint Partners, LLC, New Residential Investment Corporation, Jack Navarro, Bruce Williams, and the John and Jane Doe defendants were affected. The federal debt-collection claim was dismissed as to all defendants; the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice; and the case was closed.
What happened
Keith A. Holmes, representing himself, sued New Rez, LLC, and other defendants over efforts to collect payments on a time-barred second mortgage. He asserted a federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim, New York state-law claims, and sought to quiet title to the property.
The court ruled that Holmes did not plausibly allege deceptive or unfair debt collection. The collection letter stated the amount owed and creditor, and clearly said defendants could not bring a legal action because the limitations period had expired. After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to decide the remaining state-law claims in federal court.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the motion to dismiss as to all defendants. The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the court instructed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Holmes v. New Rez, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-08632
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
Keith A. Holmes, proceeding without a lawyer, sued New Rez, LLC, doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing; Shellpoint Partners, LLC; New Residential Investment Corporation; Jack Navarro; Bruce Williams; and John and Jane Doe defendants. The court treated the amended complaint as asserting individual claims, not class claims.
Holmes alleged that he defaulted on his second mortgage in June 2008 and received no communication from a servicer for approximately thirteen years. New Rez sent him a letter on October 11, 2021, identifying itself as the new servicer and stating that he owed $148,902.36. The letter also stated that New Rez could not bring a legal action to collect the debt or threaten to do so in New York because the statute of limitations had expired. Holmes alleged that New Rez later called him and said it was going to collect the debt anyway.
Holmes asserted claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including provisions concerning false or misleading representations, unfair collection methods, and required information about the debt. He also asserted claims under New York General Business Law Section 349 and New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 1501(4), and sought to quiet title and obtain punitive damages.
Motion and analysis
The defendants moved to dismiss the federal claim as to all defendants except New Rez and to dismiss the General Business Law claim as to all defendants. Their motion did not address Holmes’s request to quiet title. The court nevertheless concluded that the motion to dismiss was granted as to all claims and defendants.
The court held that Holmes had not plausibly alleged an actionable Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation. It reasoned that seeking voluntary payment of a time-barred debt is not necessarily a false or misleading statement, particularly where the communication makes clear that the collector cannot bring a legal action. The court found that the October 11 letter did not falsely state the debt’s legal status, threaten unlawful legal action, or use unfair or unconscionable collection methods. The letter also identified the amount of the debt and the creditor, so the court found that it supplied the information required by the statute.
The court dismissed the federal claim as to all defendants. It then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—because the federal claim had been dismissed, no complete diversity of citizenship was alleged, the case was at an early stage, and no federal issues remained. The court dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the motion to dismiss as to all defendants, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case. The opinion does not separately explain the disposition of the quiet-title request beyond its statement that the motion was granted as to all claims and defendants.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.