Boone v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

Summarized by Lyndel Vargas , Cavazos Hendricks Poirot, PC
14 years 3 months ago

Citation:

(11th Cir.)Case No. 11-10891(unpublished)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Georgia District Court’s dismissal of federal claims of pro se litigant, Carolyn Boone, and remand of her state court claims to state court. Boone had filed a complaint against Chase and McCurdy & Candler in DeKalb County, Superior Court asserting violations of TILA, RESPA, FDCPA and various state laws. Chase removed the action to federal court and then sought dismissal. Boone moved to amend her complaint, for sanctions and for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review and, not surprisingly, affirmed the findings of the District Court. The court first addresses what constitutes a federal question, and then notes that, because the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the federal question claims, it likewise may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims that form part of the federal “case or controversy.” One interesting procedural point was that the notice of removal had only been signed by Chase; however the court found that it was “technically accurate” because Chase’s counsel had express permission to sign it on McCurdy & Candler’s behalf. The case is a clean and concise recitation of the elements to be pled for TILA, RESPA and FDCPA claims. Additionally, in reviewing Boone’s sanctions motion, the court also articulates that Section 1927 contains three essential requirements: (1)unreasonable and vexatious conduct; (2)conduct that must multiply the proceedings; and (3) the amount of the sanction must bear a “financial nexus to the excess proceedings.” Then the Court noted that its first inquiry was to determine whether the party’s claims are “objectively frivolous” in view of the facts and the law.

Procedural context:

An appeal from the U.S. District for the Northern District of Georgia's denial of Plaintiff's request for remand, denial of her motion to amend her complaint, dismissal of her federal claims, and denial of summary judgment and sanctions.

Facts:

Carolyn Boone obtained a home equity line of credit (HELCO) from Washington Mutual in August of 2003. The line was later modified and, due to the FDIC's closure of Washington Mutual, Chase ended up holding the loan. Chase asserted Boone was late on her payments and hired McCurdy & Candler to handle its non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Boone filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging violations of TILA, RESPA, FDCPA and several state laws. The case was removed to the District Court by Chase and that court dismissed her federal claims.

Judge(s):

Tjoflat, Carnes and Kravitch, Circuit Judges

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!