Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted Huntington National Bank’s motion to dismiss Hector Salvatori’s claims arising from the denial of his mortgage application. The court held that Salvatori’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations and that his ECOA claim failed to allege discrimination based on a protected characteristic. The court also denied Salvatori’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
Decision date
January 7, 2026
Docket number
2:25-cv-00100
Disposition
dismissed
Questions Presented
- Whether Salvatori should be permitted to file a sur-reply because Huntington allegedly raised new arguments in its reply.
- Whether Salvatori's 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations.
- Whether filing an administrative complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission tolled or revived the limitations period for the § 1981 claim.
- Whether Salvatori adequately pleaded an Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim based on Huntington's alleged denial of mortgage credit because of immigration status.
Holdings
- Leave to file a sur-reply was properly denied because Huntington's reply addressed arguments that Salvatori himself had raised in opposition and the proposed filing was not necessary to respond to genuinely new matter.
- Salvatori's claim based on alleged discrimination in the formation of a mortgage contract was subject to the applicable state-law limitations period rather than the four-year period in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a), and the claim filed more than two years after the alleged denial was time-barred.
- The filing of Salvatori's administrative complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission did not toll or revive the limitations period applicable to his § 1981 claim.
- Salvatori failed to state an ECOA claim because his complaint did not allege discrimination based on a protected characteristic listed in 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1), instead alleging that the loan was denied solely because of immigration status.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…