Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon

33 Citing cases

  1. Malabe v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Executive Ctr.

    465 P.3d 777 (Haw. 2020)   Cited 11 times
    Declining to consider the constitutionality of Act 282 under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance

    If any person who is liable to any of the actions mentioned in this part or section 663-3, fraudulently conceals the existence of the cause of action or the identity of any person who is liable for the claim from the knowledge of the person entitled to bring the action, the action may be commenced at any time within six years after the person who is entitled to bring the same discovers or should have discovered, the existence of the cause of action or the identity of the person who is liable for the claim, although the action would otherwise be barred by the period of limitations.The dissent points out that in Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (D. Haw. 2011), the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i determined that HRS § 657-20, which allows for the statute of limitations to be tolled by reason of fraudulent concealment for claims "mentioned in [Part I of HRS Chapter 657] or section 663-3," did not apply for UDAP claims, which arise under HRS Chapter 480. 777 F. Supp. 2d at 1228-29.With respect to the applicability of HRS § 657-20 to a HRS Chapter 480 UDAP claim, HRS § 657-10 (1985) provides that "[t]his part shall not extend to any action which is, or shall be, limited by any statute to be brought within a shorter time than is herein prescribed; but the action shall be brought within the time limited by the statute."

  2. Rundgren v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

    CIVIL NO. 10-00252 JMS/BMK (D. Haw. Jun. 18, 2013)   Cited 3 times

    In response, on November 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed her SAC alleging claims against Defendants for (1) violation of HRS Ch. 480 (Count I); (2) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Count II); and (3) wrongful foreclosure (Count III). On February 28, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the SAC (the "February 2011 Order"). Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (D. Haw. 2011). As to Plaintiff's HRS Ch. 480 claim, the February 2011 Order explained that unless tolling applies, this claim is time-barred -- the loan transaction occurred more than five years before Plaintiff filed this action, and HRS Ch. 480 claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Id. at 1227.

  3. Moddha Interactive, Inc. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp.

    92 F. Supp. 3d 982 (D. Haw. 2015)   Cited 8 times
    Dismissing trade secret misappropriation claim that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations with prejudice because granting leave to amend would be futile

    A claim may be dismissed under FRCP Rule 12 as “barred by the applicable statute of limitations only when the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint,” and “only if the assertions of the complaint, read with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled.” Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon, 777 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1227 (D.Haw.2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, MODDHA does not argue that its claims were filed within the statutory limitations period; rather, MODDHA argues that the statute of limitations on its trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract claims should be tolled under (1) the doctrine of fraudulent concealment; (2) the doctrine of equitable estoppel; and (3) due to Philips' continuing breach of the MOU. ( See Doc. 140 at 26–35.)

  4. Reyes v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n

    353 P.3d 410 (Haw. Ct. App. 2015)

    Equitable tolling has been applied to circumstances closely resembling the instant case. In Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon, 777 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1230 (D. Hawai‘i 2011), the mortgagor filed a state court suit against lenders, seeking damages and rescission of mortgage loans based on alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Hawai‘i law, and alleging wrongful foreclosure. The court held that federal equitable tolling principles applied to claims under HRS § 480–12 if based on fraudulent concealment:

  5. Syngenta Seeds, LLC v. Warner

    20-cv-1428 (ECT/DTS) (D. Minn. Feb. 8, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    As a procedural matter, any affirmative defense regarding the illegality of this provision should have been raised in the Answer; because it was not, it is waived. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c)(1); see Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C. v. Barton, 614 F.3d 893, 908-09 (8th Circuit 2010); Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon, 777 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1233 (D. Haw. 2011) (“[I]llegality and/or unenforceability is an affirmative defense and not a claim for relief.”)

  6. Chung v. Vistana Vacation Ownership, Inc.

    CIV. NO. 18-00469 LEK-RT (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    This Court therefore finds that Plaintiff's limitation period for his UDAP claims for the 2006 and 2007 Contracts began to run upon the date Plaintiff entered into the respective contracts, unless Plaintiff can allege facts sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Rundgren v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1230-31 (D. Hawai`i 2011) (ruling that claims brought pursuant to Chapter 480 may rely on the fraudulent concealment doctrine to toll the statute of limitations). Because all of Plaintiff's claims arise out of the 2006 and 2007 Contracts, Plaintiff's claims are all time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations of § 480- 24(a).

  7. Amina v. WMC Fin. Co.

    329 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Haw. 2018)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that accounting claim sought a remedy but was not a stand-alone claim, and noting that the plaintiff cited "no authority for any independent cause of action for an accounting"

    To the extent this cause of action relies upon the "forged Assignment," the claim accrued no later than the recording date of the Assignment—April 4, 2012—and the four-year statute of limitations has run, unless Plaintiffs can allege facts sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. See, e.g.,Rundgren v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 777 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1230–31 (D. Haw. 2011) (finding that claims brought pursuant to Chapter 480 may rely on the fraudulent concealment doctrine to toll the statute of limitations). The Complaint, however, includes no plausible allegations suggesting that equitable tolling may apply to the UDAP claim based upon fraudulent concealment.

  8. Burke v. Countrywide Mortg. Ventures, LLC

    CIVIL NO. 17-00220 DKW-RLP (D. Haw. Dec. 19, 2017)

    Because the cause of action here accrued on or about December 11, 2007 when the "mortgage documents and mandated disclosures . . . were not given by the Countrywide Defendant," FAC ¶ 24, the four-year statute of limitations has run, unless Plaintiffs can allege facts sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Rundgren v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1230-31 (D. Haw. 2011) (finding that claims brought pursuant to Chapter 480 may take benefit of the fraudulent concealment doctrine to toll the statute of limitations). The FAC, however, includes no allegations suggesting that equitable tolling may apply to the UDAP claim based upon violations by Countrywide that occurred on or around date of the loan closing, December 11, 2007.

  9. Chung v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

    250 F. Supp. 3d 658 (D. Haw. 2017)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding loan was obtained for personal purposes even after plaintiff hired a property manager to rent the property

    Plaintiff further alleges that when Defendants sent a letter to Plaintiff demanding payment in 2015, they continued to conceal their foreclose proceedings. Plaintiff cites to Rundgren v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 777 F.Supp.2d 1224 (D. Haw. 2011) to support his claim. In Rundgren, the Court held that equitable tolling may be appropriate in a Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480 claim where there has been fraudulent concealment.

  10. Hays v. VDF Futureceuticals, Inc.

    CIVIL 15-00535 LEK-RLP (D. Haw. Sep. 28, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    R. Civ. P.] 12 as "barred by the applicable statute of limitations only when the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint," and "only if the assertions of the complaint, read with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled." Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1227 (D. Haw. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).Moddha Interactive, Inc. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp., 92 F. Supp. 3d 982, 995 (D. Hawai`i 2015), aff'd sub nom., No. 2015-2048, 2016 WL 3227326 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2016).