Filed: Jun. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: HSBC BANK USA, N.A.Selya and Howard, Circuit Judges.Josef C. Culik and Culik Law PC on brief for appellants.reviewing court to write at length.Irish, 300 F.3d 84, 86 (1st Cir. This is such a case.memorandum of decision.Mass. May 20, 2013).out, see Brickett, 52 F. Supp.-2-, tracking here.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 14-2174
VINNY M. BRICKETT AND
STEPHEN R. BRICKETT,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
HSBC BANK USA, N.A.,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Selya and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Josef C. Culik and Culik Law PC on brief for appellants.
David G. Thomas, Michael E. Pastore and Greenberg Traurig, LLP
on brief for appellee.
June 10, 2015
Per curiam. "We have said before, and today reaffirm,
that when a lower court accurately takes the measure of a case and
articulates a cogent rationale, it serves no useful purpose for a
reviewing court to write at length." Seaco Ins. Co. v. Davis-
Irish, 300 F.3d 84, 86 (1st Cir. 2002); accord Eaton v. Penn-
America Ins. Co.,
626 F.3d 113, 114 (1st Cir. 2010) ("We have
explained with a regularity bordering on the echolalic that where
a trial court correctly takes the measure of a case and authors a
convincing decision, it rarely will serve any useful purpose for a
reviewing court to wax longiloquent."). This is such a case. We
therefore summarily affirm the judgment below for substantially the
reasons elucidated in the district court's closely reasoned
memorandum of decision. See Brickett v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 52 F.
Supp. 3d 308, 311-13 (D. Mass. 2014).
We add only this brief comment. The appellants' case
hinges on their argument that HSBC Bank has been guilty of "dual
tracking." Dual tracking is a practice wherein a mortgagee
financial institution engages in loan modification negotiations
with mortgagors while at the same time moving forward with
foreclosure. See, e.g., Worrall v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No.
13-330, 2013 WL 6095119, at *5 (D.N.H. Nov. 20, 2013); Figueroa v.
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 12-11290,
2013 WL 2244348, at *5 (D.
Mass. May 20, 2013). But as the district court correctly pointed
out, see
Brickett, 52 F. Supp. 3d at 312, there was no dual
-2-
tracking here. At the time of the foreclosure, the appellants had
not yet filed a cognizable application for a loan modification.
We need go no further. The judgment below is summarily
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
-3-
