Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Caligiuri v. Columbia River Bank Mortgage Group
Citation: 329 F. App'x 93Docket: No. 07-35445
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 21, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiff Vincent-Ralph Caligiuri appeals the district court's dismissal of his action against Columbia River Bank Mortgage Group, Wells Fargo, Freedom Mortgage Corp., Loan-Care Servicing Center, Inc., and Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. for violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and various state law claims. The court affirms the dismissal based on claim preclusion under Oregon law, as Caligiuri's claims arise from the same factual transactions as a prior state court lawsuit against Columbia River Bank and Freedom, which resulted in a final judgment. Caligiuri is barred from pursuing these claims again since they could have been included in his earlier state case. His challenge to the jurisdiction of the state court is not permissible in this context. Although LoanCare and NWTS were not part of the initial lawsuit, they are subject to claim preclusion due to their privity with Freedom. Regarding the claims against Wells Fargo, the court finds them time-barred under TILA. Even assuming Caligiuri had three years to seek rescission, his claim is nonetheless untimely. Additionally, his quiet title claim is similarly foreclosed. Caligiuri’s assertion of having tendered payment fails because his promissory notes did not satisfy the requirements of the loan agreement. Claims asserting a lack of contractual obligation due to absence of consideration fail, as a line of credit constitutes sufficient consideration. Remaining claims are deemed waived, irrelevant, or moot, and amendment would not rectify the issues. The court affirms the dismissal without leave to amend. This ruling is not designated for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by the 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.