Joshua Warren Labonte v. BOKF, N.A., Universal Lending Corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Chuck Broerman, Public Trustee

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted defendants’ motions to dismiss claims arising from mortgage and pending foreclosure proceedings. The court held that the plaintiff’s Truth in Lending Act, Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and fraudulent misrepresentation claims were time-barred, and that the quiet title allegations failed to establish superior title. The court dismissed Claims 1 through 3 with prejudice and Claims 4 and 5 without prejudice, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff filed before a foreclosure sale and there had been no state-court proceeding confirming the Rule 120 order.
2. The TILA claim was barred because the alleged disclosure violations occurred when the mortgage transaction was consummated in 2020, while the action was filed in September 2025, well beyond TILA's one-year limitations period.
3. The CCPA and fraudulent-misrepresentation claims were time-barred because they were filed nearly five years after the mortgage transaction, whereas the applicable limitations periods were three years.
4. The amended complaint failed to state a plausible quiet-title claim because it attacked Defendants' title and alleged statutory violations but did not explain why Plaintiff's title was superior to Defendants' interests.
5. Plaintiff was not entitled to a permanent injunction because an injunction is a remedy rather than an independent cause of action, and dismissal of the substantive claims left no underlying legal right supporting equitable relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the federal district court of subject matter jurisdiction over claims seeking to enjoin a pending foreclosure before a foreclosure sale occurred.
2. Whether the TILA claim was barred by TILA's one-year statute of limitations and whether the recoupment, setoff, or equitable-tolling theories avoided dismissal.
3. Whether the CCPA and fraudulent-misrepresentation claims were barred by their applicable three-year statutes of limitations.
4. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated a quiet-title claim by alleging that Plaintiff's title was superior to Defendants' interests.
5. Whether Plaintiff could obtain a permanent injunction when the substantive claims underlying the requested relief were dismissed.

Disposition

other