rhodes v. diamond third circuit petition for review en banc on fdcpa preclusion issue
TRANSCRIPT
i
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
__________
No. 10-3431
DENNIS A. RHODES et al, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
- v.- ROSEMARY DIAMOND et al, Defendants-Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
09-cv-1302
______________________________________________
PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
JOHN G. NARKIN BHN LAW FIRM
951 Rohrerstown Road, Suite 102 Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601 (717) 756-0835 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners
_________________________________________
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 3d. CIR. L.A.R. 35.1 .................................................... v
BACKGROUND AND REASONS FOR EN BANC HEARING .............................. 1
LEGAL ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 6
BANKRUPT INDIVIDUALS CAN EFFECTIVELY VINDICATE THE REMEDIAL PURPOSES OF THE FDCPA ..................................................... 6
Congress Determined That Private Class Actions Under the FDCPA Are Needed to Deter Debt Collection Abuses ............................ 6
The FDCPA and the Bankruptcy Code Do Not Conflict And Both Statutes Can Be Enforced Simultaneously .................................................................................................... 8
Traditional Cannons of Statutory Construction Do Not Support Bankruptcy Code Preclusion of FDCPA Claims .......................... 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................................... 16
ii
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES
Allen v. LaSalle Bank, 629 F.3d 364 (3d Cir. 2011)……………………v, 5, 6, 7,15
Bagwell v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49369 (E.D. Ark. June 5, 2009) ...........................................9
Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450 (3d Cir. 2006). ...........................................7
Dougherty v. Wells Fargo Home Loans, Inc.,
425 F.Supp 2d 599 (E.D.Pa. 2006)……………………………………………….9
Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991) .................................................. 8
Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2007) ...........................6
Hannon v. Countrywide, 421 B.R. 728 (Bankr. M.D.Pa. 2009). ............................ 14
Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995) .....................................................................7
In re Chaussee, 399 B.R. 225 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008) ...................................... 10, 11
In re Laskowski, 384 B.R. 518 (Bankr.N.D.Ind. 2008). ............................................9
In re Lord Abbett Mut. Funds Fee Litig., 553 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2009) ................. 15
In re Pariseau, 395 B.R. 492 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2008) .................................... 10, 12
In re Williams, 392 B.R. 882 (M.D.Fla.2008)) ................................................. 12, 13
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Tini, Kramer & Urlich LPA,
599 U.S. --, 130 S. Ct. 1605, 176 L. Ed. 2d 519 (2010) ............................................6
Joubert v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc., 411 F.3d 452 (3d Cir.2005) ......... 14
Kline v. Mortgage Elec. Sec. Sys., 659 F. Supp. 2d 940 (S.D. Ohio 2009) ............... 9
iii
Kropelnicki v. Siegel, 290 F.3d 118, 129-31 (2d Cir. 2002)………………………6
Mullarkey v. Tamboer, 536 F.3d 215 (3d. Cir 2008) .............................................. 12
Price v. America's Servicing Co., 403 B.R. 775 (E.D. Ark. 2009)............................9
Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2004) ................................... 5, 9, 10
Rea v. Federated Investors, 627 F.3d 937, 941 (3d Cir. 2011) .............................. 15
Rhodes v. Diamond, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71076
(E.D. Pa. July 14, 2011) ................................................................................... 1, 4, 7
Rhodes v. Diamond, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8813
(3d Cir. April 28, 2011) ................................................................................ 1, 4, 10
Rosenberg v. XM Ventures, 274 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2001) .......................................15
Simmons v. Roundup Funding, LLC, 622 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) ..................... 9 , 13
Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2002) ...............................9
Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) ................................. v, 5, 7
STATUTES
11 U.S.C. § 105(a) .................................................................................................. 14
15 U.S.C. § 1692(e) .......................................................................................... 3, 6, 7
15 U.S.C. § 1692(f). .............................................................................................. 3, 6
15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B) .......................................................................................7
15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. .............................................................................................1
15 U.S.C. §§ 1692(e)(2)(A) and (B) ..........................................................................3
iv
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) ................................................................................................... 3
73 P.S. § 201 et seq. ...................................................................................................3
RULES
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 ............................................................................................ 14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)...................................................................................................2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................................................................................ vii, 8
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Michael D. Sousa, Circuit Split:
Does the Bankruptcy Code Implicitly Repeal the FDCPA?,
AM. BANKR. INST. J. 20, 62 (Oct. 20, 2006) ........................................................9
v
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 3d. CIR. L.A.R. 35.1
Appellants‟ counsel expresses a belief, based on a reasoned and studied
professional judgment, that the panel decision is contrary to decisions of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and that consideration by the full
court is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of decisions in this court (i.e.,
the panel‟s decision is contrary to decisions of this court in, inter alia, Allen v.
LaSalle Bank, 629 F.3d 364, 367-368 (3d Cir. 2011) and Weiss v. Regal
Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 344-345 (3d Cir. 2004)).
Appellants‟ counsel also expresses a belief, based on a reasoned and studied
professional judgment, that this appeal involves questions of exceptional
importance:
(1) whether the remedial purposes served by the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act in eliminating abusive debt collection practices may
be vindicated by bankrupt debtors, despite the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code‟s routine claim procedures, when institutionalized debt
collector misconduct cannot be addressed effectively in the
absence of class-wide relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
(2) whether creditors or their debt collection lawyers must amend
bankruptcy proofs of claim upon receipt of significant credits
from third parties (such sheriffs‟ deposit refunds) that alter the
accuracy of such proofs of claim and render them false.1
1 While mischaracterizing Appellants‟ claims and the District Court Judgment,
Appellee Lawrence T. Phelan acknowledged that this “important” issue has
“national implications.” See Lawrence Phelan, Pennsylvania: Duty to File
Amended BK Proofs of Claim?, USFN (Sept. 2010),
http://www.usfn.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=USFN_E_Update&Template=/C
M/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16330
- 1 -
BACKGROUND AND REASONS FOR EN BANC HEARING
On April 28, 2011, the panel entered a judgment (“Panel Judgment”),
attached here as Exhibit A, vacating and remanding a judgment entered by the
District Court on July 15, 2010 (“District Court Judgment”). See Rhodes v.
Diamond, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71076 (E.D. Pa. July 14, 2011). (A6-A13)
On March 25, 2009, Appellants initiated this proposed class action through
the filing of a Complaint (“Initial Complaint”) on behalf of themselves and classes
of similarly situated homeowners who (1) were the subject of state court mortgage
foreclosure proceedings prosecuted by the law firm of Phelan, Hallinan & Schmeig
(“PHS”); (2) filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and (3)
were the subjects of false proof of claims filed in bankruptcy court by PHS, who
systematically failed to account for the refund of sheriffs‟ fee deposits that were
misappropriated or converted by PHS and/or its clients. (A115-A162)
The Initial Complaint alleged that PHS violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. and related Pennsylvania
consumer protection laws. See Rhodes v. Diamond, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8813
(3d Cir. April 28, 2011) and Opinion of the Court („Panel Opinion”) (a copy of
which is attached here as Exhibit B) at 2.
On January 10, 2010, while PHS‟s motion to dismiss the Initial Complaint
was pending, Appellant Homeowners filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
- 2 -
15(a) for leave to file a fundamentally different proposed amended complaint
(“PAC”). Based on months of continuing investigation by Homeowners‟ counsel,
the PAC set forth significantly expanded allegations involving newly discovered
instances of wrongdoing and additional legal causes of action. The PAC also
introduced as parties to this action proposed class representatives whose claims
arose independent of any bankruptcy proceeding. (A14-A26)
Specifically, the PAC alleged that:
(1) PHS acted in concert with at least two mortgage servicer clients that
were also newly added as defendants, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)
and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, Inc. (now BAC Home Loans Servicing,
Inc.) (“Bank of America”), through which PHS collected not only improper
charges for unrefunded sheriffs‟ deposits, but inflated or fabricated charges for title
searches, appraisals, litigation “support” services, and property inspection and
maintenance services. Much of these bogus “piled on” foreclosure costs were
facilitated through related-party transactions with affiliates controlled by
defendants themselves; and
(2) PHS, Wells Fargo and Bank of America filed and prosecuted
uninvestigated foreclosure lawsuits on behalf of entities that had no ownership
interest in homeowners‟ mortgages and thus no legal standing to bring suit.
- 3 -
Given the magnified facts detailed in the PAC, Appellant Homeowners
commensurately expanded their legal causes of action to include claims under (1)
the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Act, 18 U.S.C. §1962(c); („RICO”) (2)
the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692(e)(2)(A) and (B), 1692f(1), and 1692(g)(2); (3) of
Pennsylvania‟s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §
201 et seq. and (4) common law remedies for fraud, breach of contract, breach of
good faith and fair dealing, money had and received, and negligent
misrepresentation.
In the PAC, Appellant Homeowners also requested more comprehensive
relief than statutory damages under the FDCPA, including (1) treble damages
under RICO; (2) disgorgement of profits wrongfully obtained by PHS, Wells Fargo
and Bank of America; and (3) equitable and injunctive relief appointing an auditor
or special master to (a) recommend business management and accounting
procedures that PHS, Wells Fargo and Bank of America must adopt and implement
to avoid future mortgage foreclosure abuses and (b) monitor these institutions‟
compliance with any business management or accounting procedures ordered by
the court.
On July 15, 2010, the District Court Judgment dismissed the Initial
Complaint with prejudice on the grounds that (1) PHS had “no duty” to amend
- 4 -
bankruptcy proofs of claim2 and (2) “redress for Plaintiffs‟ allegations of
„systematic‟ violations by Defendants for filing allegedly inflated Proofs of Claim
lie solely within the Bankruptcy Court.”3
In a two-line footnote reference to reasons given for its dismissal of the
Initial Complaint -- which were restricted to issues involving the FDCPA and
bankruptcy law -- the District Court Judgment denied the Appellant Homeowners‟
motion for leave to file the PAC on the ground that its recognizably different
claims were “moot” and “futile.”4
On April 28, 2011, the Panel Judgment vacated and remanded the District
Court Judgment, acknowledging that, “[a]s Appellants correctly note, … the
proposed amended complaint is broader than the initial complaint” and “[t]he
District Court did not address these alternative claims for relief.” Exhibit B at 5;
Rhodes v. Diamond, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8813, at *5. Appellant Homeowners
agree that this part of the Panel Judgment was decided properly, and they do not
seek further appellate review of the issue.
However, the Panel Opinion concluded that the District Court “correctly”
dismissed the Initial Complaint on the ground that “Appellants‟ claims arising
from PHS‟s conduct in bankruptcy proceedings -- i.e., its filing of, and subsequent
2 Rhodes v. Diamond, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71076, at *4-*8.
3 Id., at *12.
4 Id., at *14 n.1
- 5 -
failure to amend, allegedly inflated proofs of claim – cannot give rise to FDCPA or
state law causes of action.” Exhibit B at 4; Rhodes v. Diamond, 2011 U.S. App.
LEXIS 8813, at *4.
As shown below, dismissal of distressed homeowners‟ FDCPA claims on
bankruptcy preclusion grounds is:
(1) inconsistent with this Circuit‟s traditional statutory interpretation of the
FDCPA as enunciated, inter alia, in Allen v. LaSalle Bank, 629 F.3d 364, 367-368
(3d Cir. 2011) and Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 344-345 (3d Cir.
2004);
(2) contrary to the cogent statutory analysis of the FDCPA and Bankruptcy
Code by the Seventh Circuit in Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726, 730-33 (7th
Cir. 2004); and
(3) incompatible with established canons of statutory construction.
Because these issues were not addressed by the Panel in its non-precedential
Opinion, Appellant Homeowners respectfully request rehearing en banc limited to
this narrow, but extremely consequential, portion of the Panel Judgment.
- 6 -
LEGAL ARGUMENT
BANKRUPT INDIVIDUALS CAN EFFECTIVELY
VINDICATE THE REMEDIAL PURPOSES OF THE FDCPA
Congress Determined That Private Class Actions Under the FDCPA Are Needed to Deter Debt Collection Abuses
The Third Circuit has been among the vanguard of federal courts
recognizing the important public policies served by the FDCPA, which the
Supreme Court characterized as “a comprehensive and complex federal statute …
that imposes openended prohibitions on, inter alia, "false, deceptive" or "unfair"
debt collection practices. Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Tini, Kramer & Urlich
LPA, 599 U.S. --, 130 S. Ct. 1605, 1615, 176 L. Ed. 2d 519 (2010), citing, 15
U.S.C. § 1692(e) and (f).
In Allen v. LaSalle Bank, 629 F.3d 364, 367-368 (3d Cir. 2011), this Court
rejected a debt collection law firm‟s contention that its misleading communications
to consumers‟ attorneys are exempt from FDCPA liability. In so holding, the Third
Circuit rejected authority supporting that argument from the Ninth and Second
Circuits,5 emphasizing instead its own well-established principles of law:
“Congress made its purpose in enacting the FDCPA explicit: „to
eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to
insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt
collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to
5 Allen, 629 F.3d at 366, citing, Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926,
934-39 (9th Cir. 2007); Kropelnicki v. Siegel, 290 F.3d 118, 129-31 (2d Cir. 2002).
- 7 -
promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt
collection abuses.‟ 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e).”6 (emphasis supplied)
“Attorneys, such as [PHS here], are regarded as debt collectors, and
their conduct as such is regulated by the FDCPA.”7
“Unquestionably, the scope of the FDCPA is broad….The FDCPA is
a strict liability statute to the extent it imposes liability without proof
of an intentional violation.”8
Allowing an abusive debt collector to “escape FDCPA liability” based
on a narrow interpretation of the law “would undermine the deterrent
effect of strict liability.”9
“The FDCPA is a remedial statute, and we construe its language
broadly so as to effect its purposes.”10
Not only has the Third Circuit recognized the remedial purposes served by
the FDCPA, it has expressed a clear understanding of the means by which
Congress intended the FDCPA to accomplish those purposes.
As the Court held in Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 345 (3d Cir.
2004):
Congress explicitly provided for class damages in the FDCPA.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B)…. Congress also intended the
FDCPA to be self-enforcing by private attorney generals….
6 Allen, 629 F.3d at 367.
7 Id., citing, Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 292 (1995). In dismissing the
Appellant Homeowners‟ FDCPA claims in this case, the District Court mistakenly
concluded that Heintz was “subsequently superseded” by an amendment to 15
U.S.C. § 1692e(11) that has no application here. Rhodes v. Diamond, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 71076, at *5 n.6. 8 Allen, 629 F.3d at 368.
9 Id.
10 Id., at 367, citing, Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450, 453 (3d Cir. 2006).
- 8 -
Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991)
("[FDCPA] mandates an award of attorney's fees as a means of
fulfilling Congress's intent that the Act should be enforced by
debtors acting as private attorneys general."). Representative
actions, therefore, appear to be fundamental to the statutory
structure of the FDCPA. Lacking this procedural mechanism,
meritorious FDCPA claims might go unredressed because the
awards in an individual case might be too small to prosecute an
individual action.
(emphasis supplied).
While there is ample authority (particularly from the Ninth and Second
Circuits) supporting the conclusion of the Panel and the District Court that the
Bankruptcy Code precludes assertion of FDCPA claims by bankrupt individuals,
this Court is free to construe the FDCPA broadly in a manner more consonant with
the statute‟s remedial purposes and structure.
Appellant Homeowners respectfully submit that an appropriate balance of
the legislative purposes underlying the FDCPA and the Bankruptcy Code should
not deprive bankrupt homeowners of their rights under the FDCPA, especially
where, as here, the alleged debt collection abuses are systemic and
institutionalized, and effective relief and deterrence depends upon use of Rule 23‟s
class action procedures.
The FDCPA and the Bankruptcy Code Do Not Conflict
And Both Statutes Can Be Enforced Simultaneously
There is a split of authority among the Circuits concerning whether the
Bankruptcy Code precludes FDCPA claims brought by bankrupt individuals.
- 9 -
Compare Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 510 (9th Cir. 2002) and
Simmons v. Roundup Funding, LLC, 622 F.3d 93, 96-97 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing
Walls with approval) with Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726, 732-33 (7th Cir.
2004) (Easterbrook, J.) (disapproving Walls).11
In Randolph, the Seventh Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not
preclude FDCPA claims by bankrupt debtors because:
[both laws] overlap, each with coverage that the other lacks --
the Code covers all persons, not just debt collectors, and all
activities in bankruptcy; the FDCPA covers all activities by
debt collectors, not just those affecting debtors in bankruptcy.
Overlapping statutes do not repeal one another by implication;
as long as people can comply with both, then courts can enforce
both.
Randolph, 368 F.3d at 731.
Several courts have adopted Judge Easterbrook‟s reasoning in Randolph and
have rejected the line of authority following Walls. See, e.g., Bagwell v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49369, at *5 - *6 (E.D. Ark.
June 5, 2009); Kline v. Mortgage Elec. Sec. Sys., 659 F. Supp. 2d 940, 950 (S.D.
Ohio 2009); Price v. America's Servicing Co., 403 B.R. 775, 790 n.14 (E.D. Ark.
2009) (and cases cited therein); and In re Laskowski, 384 B.R. 518, 527-528
(Bankr.N.D.Ind., 2008).
11
See Dougherty v. Wells Fargo Home Loans, Inc., 425 F.Supp 2d 599, 604
(E.D.Pa. 2006); Michael D. Sousa, Circuit Split: Does the Bankruptcy Code
Implicitly Repeal the FDCPA?, AM. BANKR. INST. J. 20, 62 (Oct. 20, 2006)
(Randolph is "[i]n direct contrast to the result reached in Walls").
- 10 -
Resting its decision on In re Chaussee, 399 B.R. 225, 239 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.
2008) and In re Pariseau, 395 B.R. 492, 495 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2008) (without
further articulated analysis and without addressing the Seventh Circuit‟s rationale
or the split of authority among Circuits), the Panel held that the District Court
correctly found that “Appellants' claims arising from PHS's conduct in bankruptcy
proceedings … cannot give rise to FDCPA” liability. Rhodes v. Diamond, 2011
U.S. App. LEXIS 8813, at *5; Exhibit B at 4-5 (emphasis supplied).
While they may be sensible decisions confined to their particular facts,
Chaussee and Pariseau do not compel the broader conclusion reached by the Panel
and District Court in the context of this case.
In Chaussee, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”)12
reversed a judgment of the Chief Bankruptcy Judge of the Western District of
Washington, who, based on Randolph, held that an FDCPA action challenging the
legality of erroneous proofs of claim were not precluded because “the simultaneous
12
The BAP is not the equivalent of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. It was established by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit as an
“alternative forum for hearing bankruptcy appeals.” News Release, Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Makes Changes, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
FOR U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIR. (April 21, 2010),
http://www.sfbar.org/forms/court-press/bap_changes-04-21-10.pdf. BAP judges
are appointed by the Judicial Council, and they serve a term of seven years with
eligibility for a 3-year extension. Only four other Circuits avail themselves of the
BAP alternative procedure. Id.
- 11 -
assertion of Plaintiff's rights under the FDCPA and the Bankruptcy Code will not
interfere with Plaintiff's bankruptcy proceedings.”13
The issue in Chaussee concerned a creditor‟s isolated filing -- in one
individual debtor‟s Chapter 13 proceeding -- of two bankruptcy proofs of claim
that were purportedly time-barred under state law. In re Chaussee, 399 B.R. at 227.
In that limited circumstance, the BAP held, among other things, that “the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Walls controls the outcome here, and … the [Bankruptcy]
Code precludes the application of the FDCPA under these facts.”14
(emphasis
supplied). In dicta, the BAP expressed a preference for its own Circuit‟s position
as opposed to the contrary one taken by the Seventh Circuit, going so far as to
digress that “the “debt validation procedure” mandated by Section 1692g of the
FDCPA (which is not relevant to the Appellant Homeowners‟ claims against PHS)
“clearly conflict[s] with the claims processing procedures contemplated by the
[Bankruptcy] Code … [because] the provisions of both statutes cannot compatibly
operate.” Chaussee, 399 B.R. at 237-238.
The legal questions and facts at issue in Chaussee are not similar to those
raised by the institutionalized and systematic debt collection abuses involved in
this litigation. The Third Circuit is free to accept or reject Walls -- or Randolph --
however it sees fit.
13
In re Chaussee, 398 B.R. 916, 923-924 (Bankr. W.D.Wash. 2008). 14
Id., at 235 and n.12 (emphasis supplied).
- 12 -
In re Pariseau is also markedly different. There, a creditor filed proofs of
claim in an individual debtor‟s bankruptcy case seeking payment of unsecured debt
in an amount of just $1,430. 395 B.R. at 493. Quoting In re Williams, 392 B.R.
882, 888 (M.D.Fla.2008)), the Court in Pariseau declared that the debtor was
engaged in a “a so-called attempt of creative lawyering to make a mountain out of
a molehill and to transform a simple claim resolution process into an extensive and
expensive proceeding” that would “open up the floodgate for unnecessary and
expensive litigation, replacing the simple procedure for dealing with an objection
to the allowance of a claim” -- which “would be totally contrary to the entire
scheme established by Congress to deal with creditor and debtor relationships.”
Pariseau, 395 B.R. at 496.
If this Court were to permit the assertion of FDCPA claims by distressed
homeowners systematically victimized by irresponsible mortgage foreclosure law
firms like PHS, it is highly improbable that a stampede of consumers with trifling
complaints will flood the courts or disrupt the bankruptcy claim resolution process.
Conversely, if the bankrupt homeowners in this case are denied relief under the
FDCPA and other federal laws,15
they would be left without an effective remedy
15
The RICO claims asserted in the PAC are not precluded by the Bankruptcy
Code. See, i.e., Mullarkey v. Tamboer, 536 F.3d 215, 219 (3d. Cir 2008) (District
Court referred bankrupt debtor‟s RICO claim to bankruptcy court).
- 13 -
for the wrongs done to them. Here, as in Randolph, prosecution of overlapping
FDCPA claims presents no “irreconcilable conflict” with the Bankruptcy Code.
Some courts say that preclusion is necessary to dissuade debtors from
“bypassing” the bankruptcy court's proof of claim process, which they describe as
a “simple” way to achieve “claim resolution” of “very unimpressive amounts”
through “reduced judicial labor.” See, i.e., Williams 392 B.R. at 883-84. However,
PHS‟s systematic theft of sheriffs‟ scheme is not a “simple” matter involving an
“insignificant” claim of only a single debtor. “Judicial labor” is precisely what is
needed to achieve justice here.
Nor have Appellant Homeowners tried to “bypass” the bankruptcy claim
process. They did object to PHS's false claims. (A143-146; A57-A61) Only after
such objections were filed or after this lawsuit began did PHS withdraw those
claims. PHS thus recognized that its individual violations of the FDCPA had been
discovered and that its systematic violations could be exposed through this action.
The Homeowners did not bring their FDCPA claims in District Court to obtain an
adjustment of amounts owed to their mortgagees -- the essential purpose of the
proof of claim process. This class action strives instead to serve the distinct
purpose of remedying PHS's institutionalized debt collection abuses.
Some courts also say that preemption is required because "[t]here is no need
to protect debtors who are already under the protection of the bankruptcy court....”
- 14 -
Simmons, 622 F .3d at 95-96 (and cases cited therein). According to the District Court,
the "sole remedies" available to Appellants for PHS's systematic misconduct are
provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).16
However, a bankruptcy court addressing the identical issue presented here
expressed its doubt that Rule 9011 is “up to the task” of providing sufficient authority
to compel a claimant to keep their Proofs of Claim updated” to accurately reflect
receipt of sheriffs‟ deposit refunds. Hannon v. Countrywide, 421 B.R. 728, 734
(Bankr. M.D.Pa. 2009). Although the District Court below recognized “no
authority” confirming “the existence of a duty to amend a Proof of Claim,”17 the
Hannon court analyzed this issue in considered detail and determined
unequivocally that such a duty exists. Hannon, 421 B.R. at 732-733.
Section 105(a) is even less up to the task than Rule 9011. It is well established
in this Circuit that Section 105(a): (1) “has a limited scope"; (2) “does not „create
substantive rights that would otherwise be unavailable under the Bankruptcy Code‟”
and (3) “does not afford debtors a private cause of action.” Joubert v. ABN AMRO
Mortgage Group, Inc., 411 F.3d 452, 455 (3d Cir.2005).
The “sole remedies” provided in the Bankruptcy Code are of virtually no help
to a class of bankrupt homeowners who -- every bit as much as their non-bankrupt
counterparts -- have been victims of systematic FDCPA violations by PHS.
16
Rhodes v. Diamond, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71076, at * 8- *10, *13. 17
Rhodes v. Diamond, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71076, at *5-*6.
- 15 -
Traditional Cannons of Statutory Construction
Do Not Support Bankruptcy Code Preclusion of FDCPA Claims
As this Court held in Allen v. LaSalle Bank, 629 F.3d at 367, “Congress
made its purpose in enacting the FDCPA explicit.” Conversely, the Bankruptcy
Code is silent with respect to its purported primacy over the FDCPA.
It is an elementary canon of statutory construction that courts must assume
that every word in a statute has meaning. Id., citing, Rosenberg v. XM Ventures,
274 F.3d 137, 141 (3d Cir. 2001). Projection into the Bankruptcy Code of an
unexpressed congressional intention to preclude FDCPA claims under the
circumstances of this case renders the words of that statute meaningless. Here, as
in Rea v. Federated Investors, 627 F.3d 937, 941 (3d Cir. 2011) and In re Lord
Abbett Mut. Funds Fee Litig., 553 F.3d 248, 254 (3d Cir. 2009), this Court should
not “contravene congressional intent by implying statutory language that Congress
omitted.”
Dated: May 12, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
BHN LAW FIRM
By: /s/ John G. Narkin
John G. Narkin
PA Bar No. 36301
951 Rohrerstown Road, Suite 102
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 19601
Telephone: (717) 756-0835
www.bhn-law.com
- 16 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John G. Narkin, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on May 12, 2011, I
caused to be filed with the Court electronically pursuant to 3d. Cir. L.A.R. 35.2 and
3d. Cir. L.A.R. Misc. 113
APPELLANTS‟ PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
and, by causing two copies of the Petition to be mailed, via U.S. Mail, first class,
postage prepaid, I served the foregoing upon:
Daniel S. Bernheim, 3d
Jonathan J. Bart
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
Two Penn Center, Suite 910
Philadelphia, PA 19102
/s/ John G. Narkin
John G. Narkin