Case: 16-15589 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15589
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:15-cv-80638-RLR
HUSSAIN KAREEM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OCWEN LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
CITIBANK, N.A.,
as Trustee for AHMAT 2006-3,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 22, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-15589 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 2 of 8
Hussain Kareem appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his second amended
complaint that Ocwen Loan Services, LLC, and Citibank, N.A., violated federal
and state law by seeking to collect payments on a refinanced residential mortgage
loan that Kareem had rescinded. We affirm.
In July 2006, Kareem executed a promissory note and security deed in favor
of American Brokers Conduit in exchange for a loan that he used to refinance the
mortgage on his residence in Lawrenceville, Georgia. After a series of transfers,
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., acquired the rights to service Kareem’s
loan and then merged with Ocwen. Later, the “grantee” of the loan, Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., assigned Kareem’s loan to Citibank as the
Trustee for American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2006-3. Meanwhile, in
October 2008, Kareem mailed a notice to American Home to rescind the loan.
In November 2009, Kareem sued American Home, Mortgage Electronic
Systems, and others for their alleged violations of his civil rights, consumer
protection laws, and Georgia law, but the Northern District of Texas entered
summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court rejected Kareem’s
complaints that the defendants violated Georgia law by continuing to demand
payment after rescission on the ground that Kareem could not rescind a contract
from which he continued to benefit by using its proceeds to remain in his house.
The court ruled that Kareem’s claim that the defendants violated the Truth in
2
Case: 16-15589 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 3 of 8
Lending Act was untimely and his claim that they violated his civil rights failed for
lack of state action. The court also ruled that the defendants were loan servicers
instead of debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; that
American Home timely had acknowledged Kareem’s only “qualified written
request” for information as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act;
and that the assignment of a new number to Kareem’s loan account did not
constitute a material misrepresentation or a breach of a duty owed under Georgia
law. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Kareem v. Am. Home Mortg.
Servicing, Inc., 479 F. App’x 619 (5th Cir. 2012).
Kareem filed a pro se complaint in the district court against Ocwen and
Citibank, and later hired counsel to help him file his second amended complaint. In
the amended complaint, Kareem sought a declaration that his promissory note and
security deed were invalid and that American Brokers “and its alleged successors
in interest, including both Ocwen and Citibank, had no right to receive payment on
the mortgage loan” because American Brokers, which “stated to be a New York
corporation, was not in fact incorporated in . . . 2006 or subsequently,” “was not
licensed as a mortgage lender in Georgia,” and “did not have authority to do
business in Georgia.” Kareem also sought monetary damages for alleged violations
by Ocwen and Citibank of the Debt Collection Practices Act, the Truth in Lending
Act, the Credit Reporting Act, the Real Estate Settlement Act, and the Federal
3
Case: 16-15589 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 4 of 8
Trade Commission Act, and for their alleged breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing. Kareem alleged that the companies were “debt collectors” and
violated consumer protection laws by seeking repayment of the loan that he had
rescinded, by failing to “investigate or address” his “request[s] . . . [to] revisit the
issue of rescission . . . [and to] correct various billing and servicing errors,” and by
refusing to “refrain from reporting his mortgage loan account . . . [as] delinquent”
or from “threaten[ing] foreclosure.” Kareem also alleged that Ocwen had
“provided a bogus telephone number” for Citibank, and that Citibank, as the
Trustee for American Home Mortgage Assets Trust, had not responded to his
“certified notices of ‘Change in Note Holder.’”
Ocwen and Citibank moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, and
the district court granted the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court
ruled that Kareem’s claims concerning the Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Credit Reporting Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Act were barred by collateral
estoppel because he could not relitigate the validity of his “purported 2008
rescission of his mortgage loan” and by res judicata because “he raised (or could
have raised) [his claims] against Defendants’ privy in the prior action.” The district
court also ruled that Kareem “offered no legal authority” to invalidate the
promissory note and security deed under Georgia law; that Citibank could not be
liable under the Truth in Lending Act because Kareem “alleged no TILA violation
4
Case: 16-15589 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 5 of 8
that was apparent at the time of assignment”; that Kareem could not “maintain an
independent cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing
under Georgia law”; that he could not pursue “a private cause of action” under
section 5 of the Trade Commission Act; and that it would be futile for Kareem to
file a third amended complaint. Later, the district court denied Kareem’s motions
to reconsider and to file a third amended complaint.
This appeal requires that we apply two standards of review. We review de
novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Bourff v. Rubin Lublin, LLC, 674 F.3d
1238, 1240 (11th Cir. 2012). We review the denial of a motion for leave to amend
a complaint for abuse of discretion. Almanza v. United Airlines, Inc., 851 F.3d
1060, 1074 (11th Cir. 2017).
The district did not err by dismissing Kareem’s complaint to declare his
promissory note and security deed invalid. Kareem cited no authority to support his
allegations that the loan instruments were unenforceable. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“a plaintiff[] [is] obligat[ed] to provide the
grounds of his entitlement to relief”). Kareem opposed dismissal of his complaint
based on section 7-1-1013 of the Georgia Code, but that provision prohibits “any
person transacting a mortgage business in or from” Georgia from making
misrepresentations to or failing to act in good faith with borrowers, Ga. Code Ann.
§ 7-1-1013. And Georgia imposes criminal punishment instead of providing a civil
5
Case: 16-15589 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 6 of 8
remedy for conducting “a mortgage business without a license or exemption,” id.
§ 7-1-1019. See Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 697 S.E.2d 166, 172 (Ga.
2010) (“[T]he public policy advanced by a penal statute, no matter how strong,
cannot support the implication of a private civil cause of action that is not based on
the actual provisions of the relevant statute.”). As the district court stated, Kareem
provided no “plausible basis for [a] declaration” invalidating the loan instruments.
The district court correctly dismissed Kareem’s complaints that Ocwen and
Citibank violated the Debt Collection Practices Act, the Credit Reporting Act, and
the Real Estate Settlement Act. Kareem’s complaints are based on his purported
2008 rescission of the loan, which is an issue that was decided in his earlier action
and that he is barred from relitigating under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See
Barger v. City of Cartersville, Ga., 348 F.3d 1289, 1293 (11th Cir. 2003). And
Kareem is barred by res judicata from asserting claims under consumer protection
laws that he raised or could have raised in the earlier action. See Griswold v. Cty.
of Hillsborough, 598 F.3d 1289, 1292–93 (11th Cir. 2010). Kareem argues that res
judicata does not bar his complaint that Ocwen violated a recent amendment to the
Real Estate Settlement Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k). Kareem alleged that Ocwen
violated the Act by failing “to acknowledge [his] rescission notice, to correct . . .
[various billing and accounting] errors . . . for purposes of avoiding foreclosure and
to salvage his credit and reputation . . . and continu[ing] to furnish negative credit
6
Case: 16-15589 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 7 of 8
information with respect to [his] mortgage loan account . . . .” Because Kareem’s
complaint “is based upon the same factual predicate[] as [his] former action, [his]
two cases [are] really the same ‘claim’ or ‘cause of action’ for purposes of res
judicata.” See Griswold, 598 F.3d at 1293 (quoting Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc.,
193 F.3d 1235, 1239 (11th Cir. 1999)).
The district court also did not err by dismissing Kareem’s complaint
concerning the Truth in Lending Act. Kareem argues that he “never received a
notice of new ownership from Citibank,” but an assignee of a loan is not subject to
liability under the Truth in Lending Act for violations that occur after the loan has
been made. See Evanto v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 814 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir.
2016). And Kareem does not dispute that he “alleged no TILA violation that was
apparent at the time of assignment to Citibank,” as required to state a claim of
assignee liability. See id. Kareem also does not challenge the finding that he
“abandoned” his complaint against Ocwen by “conced[ing] that TILA does not
impose any liability on the servicer of a mortgage loan.”
Kareem has abandoned any challenge that he could have made to the
dismissal of his complaints for breach of the duty of good faith and for a violation
of the Trade Commission Act. “[T]he law is by now well settled in this Circuit that
a legal claim or argument that has not been briefed before the court is deemed
abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.” Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines
7
Case: 16-15589 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 8 of 8
Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). Kareem does not dispute that the
covenant of good faith “is not an undertaking that can breached apart from [the
explicit] terms” of the contract, Alan’s of Atlanta, Inc. v. Minolta Corp., 903 F.2d
1414, 1429 (11th Cir. 1990), nor that there is no private right of action available
under the Trade Commission Act. We deem abandoned any arguments that
Kareem could have made contesting the dismissal of these complaints against
Ocwen and Citibank.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Kareem leave to
file a third amended complaint. Kareem argues that the district court failed to
provide a reason for denying his motion, but the district court stated that Kareem
could not “cure the deficiencies of his Second Amended Complaint” and that
“[a]lowing [him] yet another opportunity to amend would . . . be futile.” Kareem
acknowledges that “futility gives the court a reason to deny requests for leave to
amend.” And Kareem fails to explain how granting him leave to amend his
complaint would not have been futile. See Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310
(11th Cir. 2007).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Kareem’s complaint.
8