25-492-cv Golrick v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of December, two thousand twenty-five.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, REENA RAGGI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PETER GOLRICK, JEANNE GOLRICK,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. No. 25-492-cv

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, DBA MR. COOPER,

Defendant-Appellee. ------------------------------------------------------------------

1 FOR APPELLANTS: PETER GOLRICK, JEANNE GOLRICK, pro se, Townshend, VT

FOR APPELLEE: BENJAMIN T. STASKIEWICZ, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLP, Hartford, CT

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District

of Vermont (Christina Reiss, Chief Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Appellants Peter and Jeanne Golrick, proceeding without counsel, appeal

from the January 31, 2025 judgment of the United States District Court for the

District of Vermont (Reiss, C.J.) denying their motions for leave to file a second

amended complaint (“SAC”) and dismissing their claims against Nationstar

Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”) alleging wrongdoing regarding certain real

property. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the

record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our

decision to affirm.

In May 2023 the Golricks sued Nationstar, the mortgagee on their

property, seeking to prevent it from taking possession of the property following

state-court proceedings in which the property was foreclosed and Nationstar was

2 granted a writ of possession as the new owner. After the District Court granted

Nationstar’s motion to dismiss their initial complaint based on the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine and failure to state a claim, the Golricks filed an amended

complaint alleging that Nationstar had filed a fraudulent state property tax

return post-foreclosure. The District Court dismissed the amended complaint

because the Golricks had failed to state a claim for fraud under Vermont law.

Finally, the Golricks twice moved for leave to file the SAC. The District Court

denied their motions, concluding that leave to amend was futile because the

proposed SAC failed to cure the deficiencies that the court had earlier identified

with respect to the Golricks’ fraud claim.

“[W]hen denial of leave to file a revised pleading is based on a legal

interpretation, such as futility, a reviewing court conducts a de novo review.”

Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co.,

(2d Cir. 2015). A proposed

amendment is futile if it “could not withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to

[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6).” In re IBM Arb. Agreement Litig.,

, 87 (2d Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted). We agree with the District

Court that amendment would be futile because the Golricks’ proposed SAC

failed to plausibly state a claim for fraud under Vermont law. To plead such a

3 claim, the Golricks were required to allege, among other elements, that they

“act[ed] in reliance on” an “intentional misrepresentation of a material fact” and

that they were “thereby harmed.” Felis v. Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC,

(2015) (quotation marks omitted). But the SAC does not allege that the

Golricks acted in reliance on Nationstar’s allegedly false statements in the tax

return. Because “[f]ailure to prove any one of the . . . elements [of fraud] defeats

the fraud claim” under Vermont law, we affirm the District Court’s dismissal of

the Gorlicks’ fraud claim and denial of the Gorlicks’ motions for leave to amend

the fraud claim.

The Golricks also argue that the District Court overlooked their claims

under two federal criminal statutes,

and 1519. We reject their

argument. “It is a truism, and has been for many decades, that in our federal

system crimes are always prosecuted by the Federal Government, not . . . by

private complaints.” Connecticut Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co.,

, 86–87 (2d Cir. 1972). Because neither

nor

confers a private right of action, the Golricks cannot rely on these laws to state

claims. See Eliahu v. Jewish Agency for Israel,

(2d Cir. 2019); Alaji

4 Salahuddin v. Alaji,

(2d Cir. 2000). We therefore also affirm the

District Court’s dismissal of these claims.

We have considered the Golricks’ remaining arguments and conclude that

they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District

Court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

5