Filed: Jul. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 15-3518 Suarez v. Citibank, N.A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”
Summary: 15-3518 Suarez v. Citibank, N.A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”)..
More
15-3518
Suarez v. Citibank, N.A
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY
MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE
NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A
COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
2 the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
3 on the 11th day of July, two thousand seventeen.
4
5 PRESENT:
6 ROBERT D. SACK,
7 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _________________________________________
11
12 ANTONIO LEON SUAREZ, PAULINE SUAREZ, DAVID M. CHU, ESTATE OF NICHOLAS J.
13 ANDRELLI & THU T. PHAM, HONE THACH, JOHNNY H. LE, KIET Q. BUI, LONGCHAU
14 NGUYEN, QUANG DO, EUN H. PARK, HOA V. NGUYEN, SANG EUN PARK, SOURIVAN
15 MUNPANTHAVONG, TRANG TRUONG, JUDY GROVERMAN, ART GROVERMAN, TUAN HAI
16 DANG, SON P. DANG, DANIEL TREVOR, EHNOI N. IENEMANYVONG, AMATH
17 SOULAMANY, KIMHA LY, NAM CHOI, KYUNG KYU, RONNIE A. LYLES, AS INDIVIDUAL
18 AND TRUSTEE FOR LEWIS GRACE FINANCIAL LLC TRUST, AS INDIVIDUAL AND TRUSTEE
19 FOR SOLOMAN COVE FINANCIAL LLC TRUST, AS INDIVIDUAL AND TRUSTEE FOR DOUGLAS
20 FORREST FINANCIAL LLC TRUST, AS INDIVIDUAL AND TRUSTEE FOR HORTON BIXBY
21 FINANCIAL LLC TRUST, THANH NGO DEELY, UYEN T. THAI, TRANG XUAN TRUONG,
22 XUAN TRINH TRUONG, YURI IMUTA LEE, KIMOANH DANG, PHUONG H. LY, PHUONG
23 NGUYEN, THUAN VU, VONETA SENGCHANH, CAM HOANG, THO THI NGUYEN, LAURIE A.
24 PUCCIO, VALUNA G. MUNPANTHAVONG, NGOC A. LE, MARCO A. ROMERO, HUYEN
25 HUYEN NGUYEN, PAULINE T. THAI, THONG NGO,
26
27 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
28
29 THUAN TRAN, CHRIS R. LAMONT, AS INDIVIDUAL AND TRUSTEE FOR CAMBRIDGE AVENUE
30 2253 LAND TRUST, DAVID A.. PHILLIPS, AS TRUSTEES FOR DAVID A. PHILLIPS & INGRID
1 PHILLIPS FAMILY TRUST, IDA L. SPECTOR, TRUSTEE OF THE REVANNA TRUST DATED
2 NOVEMBER 6, 1992, RONNIE A. LYLES, AS INDIVIDUAL AND TRUSTEE FOR CORDELL
3 GRANT FINANCIAL LLC TRUST, THERESA CODILLA, JAY CODILLA, RONNIE A. LYLES, JAY
4 CODILLA, AS INDIVIDUAL AND TRUSTEE FOR THE CODILLA FAMILY TRUST, ROBIN COLE,
5 RONDA L. GAMEZ, AS INDIVIDUAL AND TRUSTEE FOR RONDA LEE LIVING TRUST, LILLIAN
6 H. HENNEGAN,
7
8 Plaintiffs,
9
10 v. No. 15-3518
11
12 CITIBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
13 HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, US BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
14 BANK OF NEW YORK, AKA BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON BY MERGER AND/OR
15 ACQUISITION,
16
17 Defendants-Appellees,
18
19 STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II INC., TRUST 2006-AR4, ALTERNATIVE
20 LOAN TRUST, 2007-7T2, CWMBS, INC., CHL MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH TRUST 2005-9,
21 BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I LLC, TRUST 2006-3 2006-AC1, LEHMAN XS
22 TRUST, 2005-1 , MORTGAGE 2007-7N, MORTGAGE 2005-5N, AMERICAN HOME
23 MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, 2007-A, HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, 2006-
24 13, RESIDENTIAL FUNDING MORTGAGE SECURITIES I, INC., 20007-S5, ENCORE CREDIT
25 RECEIVABLES TRUST, 2005-4, IXIS REAL ESTATE CAPITAL TRUST, 20069-HE3, HIS ASSET
26 SECURITIZATION CORPORATION, 2007-WF1, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST,
27 RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2006-2, DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES
28 MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, 2007-OA4, 2007-1,, ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE TRUST,
29 LOAN, SERIES 2007-10, GSAA HOME EQUITY TRUST, 2006-17, 2006-9, BANC OF AMERICA
30 FUNDING CORPORATION, 2007-A, BAFC 2004-B, BAFC 2007-3, WELLS FARGO, BACKED
31 SECURITIES 20064 TRUST, GSR MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, 2005-AR3, PRIME MORTGAGE
32 TRUST, 2007-3, BEAR STEARNS ALT-A TRUST, 2005-10, 2005-9, 2006-4, BEAR STEARNS
33 ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I LLC, TRUST 2006-AC1, ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE
34 TRUST, 2006-3, MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST, 2006-WMC1, FIRST FRANKLIN
35 MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2005-FF9, 2004-FFH3, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE
36 FUNDING TRUST, MTA TRUST 2005-AR3, SERIES 2005-AR4, SERIES 2006-AR3, BANK OF
37 NEW YORK MELLON, CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-62, ALTERNATIVE
38 LOAN TRUST 2005-36, ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-J3, ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST
39 2007-OA4, ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-23CB, ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-1CB,
40
41 Defendants.
42 _________________________________________
43
44
2
1 FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: ERIK S. JAFFE, Washington, DC.
2
3 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE DEUTSCHE BANK
4 NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY: BERNARD J. GARBUTT III, Morgan, Lewis
5 & Bockius LLP, New York, NY.
6
7 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE BANK OF
8 NEW YORK MELLON: Nafiz Cekirge, Bryan Cave LLP, Santa
9 Monica, CA.
10
11 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE U.S. BANK, N.A.: Eric R. Sherman, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
12 Minneapolis, MN, Christopher
13 Karagheuzoff, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
14 New York, NY.
15
16 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CITIBANK, N.A.,
17 AND HSBC BANK USA, N.A.: Christopher J. Houpt, Michelle Joy
18 Annunziata, Mayer Brown LLP, New
19 York, NY.
20
21 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE WELLS FARGO
22 BANK, N.A.: Lisa J. Fried, Robin Muir, Hogan Lovells
23 US LLP, New York, NY.
24
25 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District
26 of New York (Woods, J.).
27 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
28 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court entered October
29 19, 2015, is AFFIRMED.
30 Plaintiffs-appellants are individuals who own or previously owned homes subject to
31 foreclosure proceedings. Their complaint alleges that the defendants-appellees, who are
32 trustees of mortgage loan trusts, violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
33 Organizations (“RICO”) Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, by asserting ownership of the plaintiffs’
34 mortgages despite knowing that those mortgages had been transferred into the trusts outside
35 the timeframe mandated by the trusts’ Pooling and Servicing Agreements (“PSAs”),
36 rendering the transfers void. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that
37 plaintiffs lacked both Article III standing and prudential standing to bring the suit. We
3
1 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the
2 case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
3 We conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint, and we affirm
4 the judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its October 19,
5 2015 opinion. As appellants concede, our Court has previously addressed squarely and
6 rejected appellants’ arguments under circumstances not materially different from those
7 presented here. See Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2014). We
8 decline appellants’ request that we revisit Rajamin’s holdings (which this panel in any event is
9 not empowered to do) or certify to the New York Court of Appeals questions addressed by
10 Rajamin.
11 ***
12 We have considered all of appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be
13 without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the October 19, 2015 judgment of the District
14 Court.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
4
