Fitch v. Federal Housing Finance Agency

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

. ) KENNETH FITCH and ESTATE OF ) DIANNE L. FITCH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE ) AGENCY; FEDERAL NATIONAL ) O14. LIA. MORTAGE ASSOCIATION; WELLS __) CA. No. 18°214-JJMCPAS FARGO BANK, N.A.; 266 PUTNAM ) AVENUE, LLC; RUSHMORE LOAN ) MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC; US _ ) BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as _ ) Trustee for RMAC TRUST, SERIES ) 2016-CTT, ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER The Court has reviewed the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 102) by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Counts VII through XIID, the Plaintiffs’ Objection (ECF No. 114), and the Reply (ECF No. 116). The Court has also reviewed the Report and Recommendation (ECF No, 157) of Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan (“R&R”), the Objection (ECF No. 176), the Response (ECF No. 178), and the Reply (ECF No. 182). The Court accepts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R for the reasons stated in it. Plaintiffs do not allege in Count VII damages that plausibly flow from an alleged RESPA/Regulation X violation. As to the remaining Counts of the Complaint

against Defendant Wells Fargo, Plaintiffs fail to allege any plausible concrete harm they incurred as required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339-344 (2016) and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 §.Ct. 2190, 2203- 14 (2021). Thus, the Court lacks standing to hear this claim as it has no subject matter jurisdiction. The Court GRANTS Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 102.

IT IS soln RED! /f f /!

John J. MeContall Jr. Chief Judge United States District Court January 18, 2022