Case: 19-11016 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-11016
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:18-cv-00199-CDL
SHEREEN R. GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
INTUIT INC,
d.b.a. Quicken Loans,
LIBERTY UTILITIES,
Defendants,
ROCKET MORTGAGE,
AMROCK INC.,
f.k.a. Title Source Inc.,
MORTGAGE ELECTRIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
d.b.a. MERS Inc.,
COOK & JAMES, LLC,
JOHN AND OR JANE DOES,
mortgage aggregators, wholesalers, mortgage originators,
loan sellers, trustee of pooled assets, trustee for holders of certificates of
collateralized mortgage obligations, investment bankers, future buyers and
investors, Individually and Severally,
Case: 19-11016 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 2 of 4
QUICKEN LOANS,
RUBIN LUBLIN, LLC, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(November 26, 2019)
Before BRANCH, TJOFLAT, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
I.
Shereen Greene, a pro se plaintiff, attempted to bring a claim against the
defendants under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and the
Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). The District Court dismissed her second amended
complaint because § 10 of RESPA does not create a private right of action and
because she filed her TILA claim more than one year after the mortgage
transaction in controversy. The District Court also chose to dismiss Greene’s
remaining state law claims—after dismissing her federal claims—rather than
exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. Greene appeals.
Because (1) the District Court properly found that § 10 of RESPA does not
provide for a private right of action, (2) Greene’s TILA claim is time-barred, and
(3) the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Greene’s state law
2
Case: 19-11016 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 3 of 4
claims after dismissing all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, we
affirm.
II.
We review a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion de novo. Hill
v. White,
321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). The complaint is viewed in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all of the plaintiff’s well-pled facts are
accepted as true.
Id.
There is no private right of action under § 10 of RESPA because it is the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who assesses civil penalties for
violations of that section. Hardy v. Regions Mortg., Inc.,
449 F.3d 1357, 1359
(11th Cir. 2006). Therefore, here, the District Court properly dismissed Greene’s
RESPA claim.
In contrast, TILA provides a private right of action.
15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).
However, a plaintiff must bring a TILA action “within one year from the date of
the occurrence of the violation.”
Id. § 1640(e). TILA violations occur when the
transaction is consummated. In re Smith,
737 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir. 1984).
Here, the transaction was consummated when Greene’s residential mortgage
transaction closed. See Frazile v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 382 F. App’x 833, 838
(11th Cir. 2010) (noting that a TILA nondisclosure violation occurs “at the time of
closing of a residential mortgage transaction” (citing Smith,
737 F.2d at 1552)).
3
Case: 19-11016 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 4 of 4
Because she did not bring her TILA claim within one year of that transaction, the
District Court properly dismissed Greene’s TILA claim.
III.
We review a district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction for an abuse of discretion. Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc.,
468 F.3d 733, 738 (11th Cir. 2006).
A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a
claim brought pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) if the district court has dismissed all
claims over which it has original jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That is
exactly what happened here—the District Court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Greene’s state law claims after dismissing all of the claims over
which it had original jurisdiction. Therefore, the District Court did not err.
IV.
Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed Greene’s complaint, and
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4
