COSTELLO v. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION LLC (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant James Costello (“Costello”), proceeding pro se, brought this action against several banking and mortgage entities related to the attempted foreclosure of his property. Costello sought declaratory orders, injunctive relief, and damages from various defendants, as well as sanctions against one of the defendants’ attorneys. The District Court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and the motion for sanctions for failure to comply with Rule 11(c)(2). Costello now appeals. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

After reviewing the whole record, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint. We affirm for substantially the reasons given by the District Court in its thorough Ruling and Order. Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 16-cv-1706 (VAB), 2017 WL 3262157 (D. Conn. July 31, 2017).¹

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Costello on appeal and find them to be without merit. The August 11, 2017 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Ridinger v. Dow Jones & Co. Inc., 651 F.3d 309, 317 (2d Cir. 2011). In any event, we note that Costello’s invocation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is unavailing because the District Court did not, in fact, “reconsider[ ] the state foreclosure dismissal in favor of plaintiff.” Br. Appellant 40. The lack of notice in that earlier foreclosure action has no bearing on the reasoning of the District Court. We also note that Costello’s various claims under the Truth in Lending Act fail because they were raised for the first time in his opposition to the motions to dismiss. See Soules v. Conn., Dep’t of Emergency Servs. & Pub. Prot., 882 F.3d 52, 56 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Ordinarily, parties may not amend the pleadings through motion papers.”). In any event, such claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See Redmond v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 697 F. App'x 23, 25 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) ).