762 Fed.Appx. 115 (3rd Cir. 2019), 17-1775, Pizarro v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
|Citation:||762 Fed.Appx. 115|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||Pedro J. PIZARRO, individually, Appellant v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; Does 1-20|
|Attorney:||Pedro J. Pizarro, Pro Se Diane A. Bettino, Esq., Laura K. Conroy, Esq., Reed Smith, Princeton, NJ, Henry F. Reichner, Esq., Reed Smith, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellee|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CHAGARES, BIBAS and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||January 07, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 23, 2018
This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-16-cv-05419), District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Pedro J. Pizarro, Pro Se
Diane A. Bettino, Esq., Laura K. Conroy, Esq., Reed Smith, Princeton, NJ, Henry F. Reichner, Esq., Reed Smith, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: CHAGARES, BIBAS and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
Pedro J. Pizarro appeals pro se from the District Courts order dismissing his complaint with prejudice and the District Courts subsequent order denying reconsideration. For the following reasons, we will affirm.
This matter arises from a $165,000 loan that Pizarro received from Washington Mutual Bank, FA. The loan is evidenced by a note and is secured by a mortgage on Pizarros residence in Hamilton, New Jersey. Pizarro executed the note and mortgage on June 10, 2005. On April 9, 2007, this mortgage was assigned to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo).
Pizarro defaulted on the loan, and Wells Fargo filed a foreclosure action against him in New Jersey state court on June 24, 2009. On September 7, 2016, while the foreclosure action was still pending, Pizarro filed this complaint before the District Court. In his complaint, Pizarro claims
that he has effected rescission of the note and mortgage under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by mailing notice of that rescission to Wells Fargo on March 21, 2016. Pizarro sought a declaration that Wells Fargo consequently held no interest in the note or mortgage, an order directing Wells Fargo to return the note and mortgage, and a declaration that no other unknown persons (named as Does 1-20 in his complaint) held an interest in his residence.
Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP