Vargas v. Capital One Financial Advisors, 031314 FED2, 13-3262

Docket Nº:13-3262
Party Name:Ibelka Vargas, and the Class of those persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Capital One Financial Advisors, AKA Greenpoint Savings Bank, AKA Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Countrywide Bank, Countrywide Financial Corporation, AKA Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc., Seterus, Bank of America, NA, Defen
Attorney:FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Phillip Jaffe, New York, N Y. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Anand S. Raman, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, DC, for Capital One Financial Advisors. Christine Burke Cesare and Scott Harris Kaiser, Bryan Cave LLP, New York, N Y, for Countrywide Bank, Count...
Judge Panel:PRESENT Pierre N. Leval, Susan L. Carney, Circuit Judges, Katherine Polk Failla, District Judge.
Case Date:March 13, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Ibelka Vargas, and the Class of those persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Capital One Financial Advisors, AKA Greenpoint Savings Bank, AKA Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Countrywide Bank, Countrywide Financial Corporation, AKA Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc., Seterus, Bank of America, NA, Defendants-Appellees. [**]

No. 13-3262

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

March 13, 2014

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

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 a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of March, two thousand fourteen.

Appeal from an August 16, 2013 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Swain, J.).

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Phillip Jaffe, New York, N Y.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Anand S. Raman, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, DC, for Capital One Financial Advisors.

Christine Burke Cesare and Scott Harris Kaiser, Bryan Cave LLP, New York, N Y, for Countrywide Bank, Countrywide Financial Corporation, AKA Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Bank of America, NA.

Allison J. Schoenthal and Courtney Colligan, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, NY, for IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc. and Seterus.

PRESENT Pierre N. Leval, Susan L. Carney, Circuit Judges, Katherine Polk Failla, District Judge.[*]

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Ibelka Vargas appeals from the judgment of the District Court dismissing her complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In 2012, Vargas brought this putative class action against Defendants-Appellees Capital One Financial Advisors ("Capital One"); Countrywide Bank; Countrywide Financial Corporation; Bank of America, NA; IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc.; and Seterus (collectively, the "Lenders"). She alleged that the Lenders engaged in discriminatory residential mortgage loan practices in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691; and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982.

The District Court's dismissal rested on its determination that res judicata and a class settlement agreement barred Vargas's claims. Vargas is a member of the settlement class approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Ramirez v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., No. 08-cv-00369 (TEH) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2011) ("Ramirez"). The Ramirez settlement class is party to a Settlement Agreement entered into in 2011 with GreenPoint Mortgage Funding ("GreenPoint"), the named defendant in the Ramirez litigation. GreenPoint was in 2006 acquired by Capital One, which succeeded to GreenPoint's interests in Vargas's first and second mortgage loans. As alleged in her complaint in the district court here, Vargas's first mortgage was thereafter successively acquired by the remaining Lenders, and her claims against those Lenders are derivative of her claim against Capital One. Vargas did not opt out of the Ramirez settlement class. The district court ruled, accordingly, that Vargas's claims against Capital One and the other Lenders were covered by res judicata and the release effected by the Settlement Agreement approved by the Ramirez court.1

On appeal, Vargas argues that the district court erred in applying res judicata principles to her claims, principally because of deficiencies Vargas perceives (1) in the delivery and substance of the Ramirez settlement class notice, and (2) in the representation provided by Ramirez class counsel. She also contends that res judicata does not bar the injunctive relief that she sought in the district court, under which her loan would be modified and the principal owed would be reduced. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

"We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff 's favor." Fait v. Regions Financial Corp., 655 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 2011). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Most relevant here, we will "affirm the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim based on the affirmative defense of res judicata if all relevant facts are shown by the court's own...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP