Rambow v. Harmon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Julie A. Rambow
a/k/a Julie A. Barker
v. Civil No. 24-cv-202-SE-AJ
Andrew Harmon
Harmon Law Offices
GMAC Mortgage Corp.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this consolidated case, pro se plaintiff Julie A. Rambow
filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1)1 against a mortgage company that,
she alleges, illegally foreclosed on her home, the attorney who
represented the mortgage company, and his law firm. Ms. Rambow’s
complaint is before the undersigned magistrate Judge for
preliminary review. See LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
As explained more fully below, the case should be dismissed
because it was filed long after the expiration of the statute of
limitations.
1 Pursuant to the court’s consolidation order (Doc. No. 5),
the complaints in the two cases consolidated with this one, 24-
cv-203-LM-TSM and 24-cv-204-SM-AJ, were docketed in this case as
complaint addenda. (Doc. Nos. 6 and 7). The court has considered
those addenda in its preliminary review analysis.
Case 1:24-cv-00202-SE-AJ Document 8 Filed 10/08/24 Page 1 of 5

2
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Ms. Rambow’s, that are filed in forma pauperis.
See LR 4.3(d). The magistrate judge may recommend to the
district judge that one or more claims be dismissed if, among
other things, the court lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is
immune from the relief sought, or the complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d). In conducting its preliminary review,
the court construes pro se complaints liberally. See Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The complaint
must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted). The court treats as true all
well-pleaded factual allegations, and construes reasonable
inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Ocasio-Hernández v.
Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
Factual Allegations
Ms. Rambow alleges that defendant GMAC Mortgage Corp.
(“GMAC”) violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §
1601, et seq., when it foreclosed on her home in Alexandria, New
Hampshire, in 2008 or 2009. Ms. Rambow further asserts that the
foreclosure occurred during the pendency of state-court divorce
proceedings and interfered with the sale of the marital home.
Case 1:24-cv-00202-SE-AJ Document 8 Filed 10/08/24 Page 2 of 5

3
She alleges that the foreclosure led to financial ruin for her
and her children, one of whom is disabled. She seeks damages
more than $349,000 from GMAC for the loss of the home and
additional compensation for the loss of the opportunity to
“flip” other homes.
Ms. Rambow alleges that Attorney Harmon breached a verbal
agreement to delay foreclosure until the judge in the marital
proceedings ordered the sale of the home and division of
proceeds. She seeks more than $1 million in damages from
Attorney Harmon and Harmon Law Offices.
Discussion
The declared purpose of TILA is “to assure a meaningful
disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to
compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and
avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer
against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card
practices.” Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412 (1998)
(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a)). Failure to comply with TILA's
requirements subjects creditors to civil liability. 15 U.S.C. §
1640(a) (“[A]ny creditor who fails to comply with any requirement
imposed under this part . . . with respect to any person is liable
to such person . . . .”).
For damages actions such as this one, the statute of
limitations to bring a claim under TILA is “one year from the
Case 1:24-cv-00202-SE-AJ Document 8 Filed 10/08/24 Page 3 of 5

4
date of the occurrence of the violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e);
Lai Chan v. Saxon Mortg. Serv., Inc., No. 09-11265-JGD, 2010 WL
11580042 at *7, (D. Mass. Jan. 11, 2010) (explaining that “TILA
contains two statutes of limitations, a one-year statute for
damage claims, and a three year statute for rescission actions”)
(citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1635(f), 1640(e)).
As Ms. Rambow is seeking only damages in this case, the
one-year limitations period applies. But even applying the
three-year period, this suit was filed long after the statute of
limitations expired. According to the complaint, the foreclosure
took place in 2008 or 2009. Thus, the latest the statute of
limitations could have expired was in 2012, approximately twelve
years before this action was filed.
Where the facts alleged in the complaint show that the
claims are time-barred, and there is no possibility that the
statute may have been tolled, the court may dismiss the
complaint on preliminary review. See Pigott v. Lynn Police Dep't,
7 F.3d 218, 1993 WL 375821, at *5 (1st Cir. Sept. 27, 1993). So
it is here. Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed as
untimely.2
2 Even if Ms. Rambow mistakenly cited TILA in her complaint,
the court is not aware of any applicable statute of limitations
that would allow a suit to be filed twelve years after the act
triggering the lawsuit.
Case 1:24-cv-00202-SE-AJ Document 8 Filed 10/08/24 Page 4 of 5

5
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
this case based on the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The Clerk of Court should then enter judgment and close the
case.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. The
objection period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file
any objection within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court's Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016). Only those issues
raised in the written objections “are subject to review in the
district court,” and any issues “not preserved by such objection
are precluded on appeal.” Id. (cleaned up).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
October 8, 2024
cc: Julie A. Rambow, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00202-SE-AJ Document 8 Filed 10/08/24 Page 5 of 5