Kante v. Countrywide Home Loans, 061611 FED11, 10-15770
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||BOSCO A. KANTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, MCCURDY & CANDLER L.L.C., et al, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||June 16, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-01233-JEC
Bosco A. Kante, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's post-judgment orders in his action arising from the foreclosure on his home. He argues, first, that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint. Second, he argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of the complaint. Finally, he argues that District Judge Julie Carnes erred in ruling on his motion to recuse her, rather than asking a different judge to rule on the motion in her place. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Kante entered into a purchase-money mortgage with Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. ("Greenpoint") in March 2007, in order to finance the purchase of his Atlanta home. On May 1, 2009, he received a letter from McCurdy & Candler, LLC, a law firm representing Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), which stated that Kante was in default on his mortgage and owed an amount in excess of $325, 000. When Kante failed to remedy the default, a foreclosure sale was scheduled for June 2, 2009. On May 8, 2009, Kante filed a pro se complaint against: Countrywide Home Loans ("Countrywide"); Greenpoint; MERS (collectively "the mortgagee defendants"); McCurdy & Candler; Chicago Title Insurance Company ("Chicago Title"); and various unidentified parties. The foreclosure sale was postponed during the pendency of the litigation.
Kante's 42-page complaint alleged approximately 14 claims1 and sought as relief: (1) rescission of the loan; (2) quiet title to the property; (3) a refund of any money or property paid by Kante to the defendants, apparently including mortgage payments, and relinquishment of the right to retain any proceeds; (4) damages equal to twice the finance charges on his mortgage payments; (5) costs and attorney fees; (6) a restraining order and injunction preventing the foreclosure sale of his home; and (7) other actual, statutory, and punitive damages to be determined at trial.
Chicago Title answered the complaint. The mortgagee defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), alleging that (1) the complaint was a shotgun pleading; (2) most of the claims were alleged collectively against the "defendants, " including several John Does and John Roes, without setting forth which specific defendant committed each action; (3) several statutory claims were time-barred, did not provide for the relief sought, or had not been administratively exhausted; and (4) several of Kante's other claims failed as a matter of law. McCurdy & Candler also moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b), for failure to state a claim, lack of personal jurisdiction, and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP