Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 October 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–14216,15–14216
• Citation: 839 F.3d 998
• Parties: Roger Nicklaw, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Citimortgage, Inc., Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

839 F.3d 998

Roger Nicklaw, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Citimortgage, Inc., Defendant–Appellee.

No. 15–14216

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed: October 6, 2016

Todd S. Garber, Finkelstein Blankinship Frei–Pearson & Garber, LLP, White Plains, NY, Scott Rhead Shepherd, Nathan C. Zipperian, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Weston, FL, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Lucia Nale, Christopher Comstock, Thomas V. Panoff, Mayer Brown, LLP, Chicago, IL, Louis F. Bonacorsi, Bryan Cave, LLP, Saint Louis, MO, April Boyer, Stephen Allan McGuinness, K&L Gates, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant–Appellee.

Before MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and LAWSON,^* District Judge.

WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge:

This appeal requires us to decide whether a plaintiff has standing to sue when he alleges only a failure to record a satisfaction of mortgage within a statutory period and fails to bring suit until after that statutory violation has been remedied. Roger Nicklaw sold real estate and used the proceeds to satisfy a mortgage owned by CitiMortgage, Inc. New York law required CitiMortgage to file within 30 days a certificate of discharge with the county clerk to record that Nicklaw had satisfied his mortgage. N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 275 ; N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 1921. But CitiMortgage failed to record the satisfaction of mortgage until more than 90 days after the date of satisfaction. When Nicklaw discovered that the certificate had been recorded late, he filed a putative class action against CitiMortgage. The complaint alleges that CitiMortgage violated New York law by failing to record the certificate of discharge within the statutory period. The district court dismissed Nicklaw's complaint based on an earlier ruling that a previous suit filed by Nicklaw had become moot, but we need not address that issue. CitiMortgage argues, and we agree, that Nicklaw lacks standing to maintain this action. Because Nicklaw has not alleged that CitiMortgage's violation of New York law caused or could cause him any harm, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 2, 2012, Nicklaw sold real estate that he owned in Buchanan, New York. He used the proceeds to satisfy the balance owed on a mortgage owned by CitiMortgage. Under New York law, CitiMortgage then had 30 days to file a certificate of discharge with the county clerk to record that Nicklaw had satisfied the mortgage. N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 275 ; N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 1921. If CitiMortgage failed to record the certificate within 30 days, it would be liable to Nicklaw for $500. N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 275 ; N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 1921. This amount would increase to $1,000 after 60 days, and $1,500 after 90 days. N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 275 ; N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 1921. But CitiMortgage failed to record the satisfaction of mortgage until October 17, 2012.

In 2013, Nicklaw filed a putative class action against CitiMortgage in the Southern District of Florida that alleged that CitiMortgage violated sections 275 and 1921 by failing to record the certificate of discharge until over 90 days after Nicklaw satisfied his mortgage. CitiMortgage extended an offer of judgment to Nicklaw, Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, that offered him all the relief he requested in the complaint. When Nicklaw refused to accept the offer, CitiMortgage filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the offer of judgment rendered the case moot. The district court agreed and dismissed Nicklaw's complaint. Nicklaw did not appeal that dismissal.

In October 2014, Nicklaw filed a second complaint against CitiMortgage in the Eastern District of Missouri, which was transferred to the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that CitiMortgage violated sections 275 and 1921 when it filed the certificate of discharge more than 90 days after Nicklaw satisfied his mortgage. It does not allege whether Nicklaw or any other member of the putative class was aware that the certificate of discharge had not been recorded within the statutory time period. It alleges only that the satisfaction of the mortgage was recorded late. CitiMortgage moved to dismiss Nicklaw's second complaint on the ground that the previous dismissal for mootness had preclusive effect.

A magistrate judge recommended the complaint be dismissed based on the earlier ruling on mootness. The district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed the complaint. After Nicklaw filed this appeal, CitiMortgage moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the dismissal of a complaint de novo. Culverhouse v. Paulson & Co. Inc., 813 F.3d 991, 993 (11th Cir. 2016).

III. DISCUSSION

Questions of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Ingram v. CSX Transp., Inc., 146 F.3d 858, 861 (11th Cir. 1998). Although we ordinarily will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal, “[a]ny time doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction, we are obliged to address the issue before proceeding further.” Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 68 F.3d 409, 414 (11th Cir. 1995). This appeal obliges us to consider our jurisdiction.

The Constitution confers limited authority on the judicial branch. It endows the federal courts with “[t]he judicial Power of the United States,” U.S. Const. Art. III § 1, and limits that power to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies.” Id. § 2. “There is no case or controversy, the reasoning has gone, when there are no adverse parties with personal interest in the matter.” Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers , 17 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 881, 882 (1983). And Article III restricts the jurisdiction of the federal courts to litigants who have standing to sue. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

We must determine whether Nicklaw has standing to sue CitiMortgage. The “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” comprises three elements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Id. at 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130. This bedrock requirement serves many of “the implicit policies embodied in Article III.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968). Standing promotes the separation of powers by preventing “overjudicialization of the process of self-governance.” Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing , supra, at 881. It serves judicial efficiency by “prevent[ing] the judicial process from becoming no more than a vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned bystanders.” United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 687, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973). It improves judicial decision making by assuring that the questions presented to the court are resolved in a concrete factual context. Valley Forge Christian Coll . v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). And it ensures that “people cannot be intermeddlers trying to protect others who do not want the protection offered.” Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction 59 (5th ed. 2007).

To determine whether Nicklaw has standing, we must decide whether he alleges an injury in fact. Absent an alleged injury, Nicklaw cannot make out a case or controversy under Article III. A plaintiff has injury in fact if he suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. “A ‘concrete’ injury must be ‘de facto ’; that is, it must actually exist.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1548, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). And intangible injuries may satisfy the Article III requirement of concreteness. Id. at 1549. For example, a plaintiff who alleges a violation of a statutory right to receive information alleges a concrete injury. See Fed. Election Comm'n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 20–25, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998) ; Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373–74, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982).

Because Nicklaw alleges only that CitiMortgage violated New York law, we must determine whether the intangible harm caused by the delay in recording the certificate of discharge constitutes a concrete injury in fact. “[B]oth history and the judgment of Congress play important roles” in this analysis. Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1549. “[W]hether an alleged intangible harm has a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts” is instructive because the case-or-controversy requirement is “grounded in historical practice.” Id. And “Congress may ‘elevat[e] to the status of legally cognizable injuries concrete ... injuries that were previously inadequate in law.’ ” Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Lujan , 504 U.S. at 578, 112 S.Ct. 2130 ); see also Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 514, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). But a plaintiff does not “automatically satisf[y] the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right.” Spokeo , 136 S.Ct. at 1549.

Nicklaw argues that the intangible harm that occurs when the discharge of a...