The defendants in this redistricting challenge had unsuccessfully sought a protective order shielding legislators and their staff from deposition. Slip op. at 1. The three-judge panel ordered that the depositions go forward, but specified that the deponents could assert the privilege in response to specific questions and then answer the question under seal for the three-judge panel’s in camera review. Id. at 1-2. In this opinion, the panel clarified the procedure by pointing out that the privilege is personal to the individual legislators or staff members, rather than a right the Governor or others can invoke. Id. The panel then cited the five- factor test in Rodriguez v. Pataki, 280 F. Supp. 2d 89, 93-94 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) as controlling on the scope of the privilege. Slip op. at 3-4.
Judge Rodriguez Disposes of Another Foreclosure Case by Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal
In this foreclosure litigation, the former property owners claimed that the bank assured them until the last moment that their application for loan modification was under review and their home would not be sold at foreclosure. Slip op. at 1-2. Three days prior to foreclosure, the bank changed tack and proceeded with the sale. Id. at 2. The bank submitted the deed of trust with its Rule 12(b)(6) motion and the District Court concluded it could consider the document inasmuch as it was central to the property owners’ claims and referenced in the complaint, and could be judicially noticed since it was a public record. Id. at 3-4. Based on the deed of trust, the District Court concluded that the statute of frauds barred the property owners’ promissory estoppel claim. Id. at 4-6. And dismissal of that claim compelled the dismissal of the wrongful foreclosure and declaratory judgment claims, which were derivative of the promissory estoppel claim. Id. at 6-8.
Judge Rodriguez Denies Reconsideration Bid in Foreclosure Litigation
In an earlier opinion, the District Court entered summary judgment against the property owners in this foreclosure litigation, finding at least five reasons they could not make out a viable claim for quiet title. Slip op. at 3. The property owners filed a stock motion for reconsideration, arguing that they had raised an issue about the validity of the assignment of the deed of trust. Id. at 4-5. The District Court reiterated that the record showed no basis for disputing that as the holder of the mortgage note the bank could foreclose regardless. Id. at 5-6. Therefore, the District Court denied the motion for new trial or rehearing. Id. at 6.