Olusola Ojelade and Sherifat Sola-Ojelade v. PHH Mortgage Servicing Corporation, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted PHH Mortgage Corporation’s motion to dismiss the pro se plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act’s periodic-statement requirement. The court held that the claim was barred by TILA’s one-year statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs had not pleaded facts supporting equitable tolling. Dismissal was with prejudice as to PHH only.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs’ TILA claim against PHH was subject to TILA’s one-year statute of limitations, and the allegations showed that the claim should have been filed by 2022.
2. Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts showing that PHH engaged in misleading conduct beyond the alleged TILA violation or that plaintiffs exercised reasonable due diligence; therefore equitable tolling did not apply.
3. The court could consider documents integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint and undisputedly authentic documents attached to the motion to dismiss.
4. Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because further amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly stated a TILA claim against PHH for failing to provide periodic statements for the alleged second mortgage.
2. Whether equitable tolling could save plaintiffs’ TILA claim against PHH from the TILA’s one-year statute of limitations.
3. Whether further amendment would be futile and therefore dismissal should be with prejudice.

Disposition

dismissed