Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge. Darrick and Yolanda Grimes (“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, bring this action against Fremont General Corporation (“FGC”) and Fremont Investment and Loan (“FIL”) (collectively, “Fremont”), WCS Lending LLC (“WCS”), Jonathan Tanenbaum (“Tanenbaum”), Nadene McBean (“McBean”), U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Master Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-FRE-l (“U.S. Bank”), and 3 Day Appraisal Services (collectively, “Defendants”), for violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.; the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1639; the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.; the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.; the Civil Rights Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, & 1985(3); and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962; as well as fifteen state law claims. Fremont, WCS, and U.S. Bank (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) have each moved to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated herein, the motions to dismiss are granted in part. I. Background The Amended Complaint is 161 pages long and contains 722 paragraphs. It sometimes contains conflicting dates and descriptions of events, and Plaintiffs are not always clear about which Defendants purportedly took which actions. However, for purposes of deciding the instant motions to dismiss, the Court accepts as true the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, described below, and construes them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. A. Factual Background Plaintiffs Darrick and Yolanda Grimes (“Plaintiffs”) are African-American owners of a house located at 23 Stacy Lee Drive, in Newburgh, New York (the “Newburgh home”). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17-18.) At the time of the transaction at issue, Plaintiffs were employed as legal assistants, earning a combined $103,000 per year. (Id. ¶ 61.) According to Plaintiffs, Defendant FGC is a financial services holding company that engages in real estate lending operations through its wholly owned subsidiary, Defendant FIL, “a wholesale lender [that] obtains] all of its loans through a network of independent mortgage brokers.” (Id. ¶¶ 19, 23.) Defendant WCS is a licensed mortgage broker based in Florida. (Id. ¶ 28.) Defendant Tanenbaum was a mortgage broker at WCS. (Id. ¶ 31.) Defendant U.S. Bank is a banking association acting as trustee for Master Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006 FRE-1, and “is the trustee for the securitization pool that contains [ ] Plaintiffs [sic] loan pursuant to a Pooling and Service Agreement dated August 1, 2006.” (Id. ¶¶ 35, 38.) 1. Purchase and Financing of the Newburgh Home Plaintiffs owned a home in St. Albans, New York (the “St. Albans home”), which they placed on the real estate market on or about July 17, 2005. (Id. ¶¶ 135-36.) On August 1, 2005, Plaintiffs signed a contract to purchase the Newburgh home for $435,000, and submitted a $20,000 down payment to the sellers. (Id. ¶¶ 135, 137.) According to Plaintiffs, Yolanda Grimes had a good credit score, but Darrick Grimes had a poor one. (Id. ¶ 61.) To finance the purchase, Plaintiffs applied for a mortgage from Washington Mutual, but were denied on September 5, 2005. (Id. ¶ 189.) Subsequently, Plaintiffs searched for other financing sources, and decided to use Tanenbaum, who told Plaintiffs he would help them “ ‘obtain reasonable financing,’ ” and that WCS “ ‘would provide everything’ for the closing and mortgage process.” (Id. ¶¶140, 145, 151.) Based on Tanenbaum’s purported statements and assurances, “Plaintiffs did not seek assistance from another mortgage broker, bank or appraiser.” (Id. ¶ 152.) Plaintiffs allege that Tanenbaum told them that they would qualify for traditional loan products with a fixed interest rate of, at the most, 7%. (Id. ¶ 205.) However, Plaintiffs allege that, through Fremont, WCS actually arranged a 100% no-doeumentation-financing Adjustable Rate Mortgage (“ARM”) loan for Plaintiffs, which for the first two years of the loan, consisted of a lower fixed rate and lower monthly payments, followed by a higher, adjustable rate for the next twenty-eight years. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 55.) Plaintiffs claim that they “would not have entered into the transaction but for WCS Lending’s misrepresentations, false promises, and other negligent advice.” (Id. ¶ 83.) Plaintiffs never met with Tanenbaum in person. (Id. ¶ 167.) Plaintiffs allege that on or about September 9, 2005, Tanenbaum had them sign a loan application that purportedly misstated the income of Yolanda Grimes; Plaintiffs were not given a copy of the application, and were not asked to provide documentation of their income, employment, or assets. (Id. ¶ 65.) Exhibits attached to the Amended Complaint indicate that WCS submitted several sets of documents to Fremont in September and October 2005. First, Plaintiffs assert that upon information and belief, WCS employees Tanenbaum and McBean “intentionally and knowingly” submitted a mortgage application and related pre-disclosure documents to Fremont on September 13, 2005, that “contained falsified data and forged signatures on the application in many material respects.” (Id. ¶¶ 158, 212-13.) These documents included an application for a $405,000 2/28 ARM loan at an 8% interest rate, indicating that Plaintiffs had $1,076 in monthly rental income (Compl. Ex. 2), and a HUD Settlement Statement containing the same information, (id. Ex. 4). Fremont’s records indicate that it received this loan application on September 16, 2005, and, on the same date, Fremont approved a counter-offer of: (1) a 2/28 ARM loan for $405,000, at an initial interest rate of 8.45%, and (2) a second loan for $22,500, at a fixed interest rate of 12.45%. (Id. Ex. 5.) The approval form states that these documents were being sent to Majestic Settlement Services to be verified by Plaintiffs. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that Fremont approved their mortgage financing based on this fraudulently submitted mortgage loan application (Am. Compl. ¶ 70), though there is no assertion that Fremont knew that the application contained false information. Plaintiffs further allege that they were not told that this application had been approved, or of any of the material terms of the financing that they were being offered, until the closing on October 12, 2005. (Id. ¶¶ 169, 222.) Next, Plaintiffs allege that on or about September 14, 2005, they received a mortgage application and disclosure documents from WCS for a potential Fremont loan, that Plaintiffs characterize as “confusing”; however, Plaintiffs admit that they signed these documents on September 20, 2005. (Id. ¶¶ 69, 71.) Despite Plaintiffs’ claims that this application offered a loan with a fixed interest rate of 7% (id. ¶ 226), the actual documents, which Plaintiffs themselves have submitted as exhibits, clearly and repeatedly stated that the loan was not a fixed rate, but instead was a 2/28 ARM mortgage. (Compl. Ex. 3.) The completed loan application also stated — on pages that Plaintiffs concede they signed— that Plaintiffs earned $1,076 per month in net rental income. (Id.) Plaintiffs also signed a document acknowledging that their “interest rate [was] currently floating and [was] subject to daily changes based upon market fluctuations,” and a “Good Faith Estimate” of their likely settlement charges, listing anticipated fees, charges, taxes, and insurance payments in the amount of $12,844.75. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege they became concerned that they had not received the final mortgage numbers or a confirmed written financing commitment. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 229-32.) Plaintiffs allege that they “were confused and very reluctant about going forward with the property purchase”; but, after “numerous phone calls” with WCS, during which WCS used unspecified “high pressure tactics to convince Plaintiffs through deception and misrepresentation to go forward with the closing,” Plaintiffs decided to proceed “because they feared losing their $20,000 deposit.” (Id. ¶¶ 182-84, 236.) Plaintiffs also state that on October 11, 2005, they called their lawyer, Keith Schultzman (who represented them at the closing), and WCS to get confirmation of the final closing numbers and a copy of the HUD-1 Settlement Statement (id. ¶ 187); however, the Amended Complaint does not indicate the result of these conversations. Ultimately, the sale of the Newburgh home closed on October 12, 2005. (Id. ¶ 73.) Plaintiffs claim that they were “shocked” at the closing to find out for the first time the actual terms of their loans, and that they “closed under extreme duress” (id. ¶¶ 251, 253), though Plaintiffs admitted at oral argument that they had their lawyer with them at the closing. According to Plaintiffs, during the closing they “were instructed to sign various documents and initial numerous individual pages” that were not explained to them (again, in the presence of their attorney), but they were assured — by an unspecified person — “that each document was in order and should be signed, including the mortgage application and related disclosure documents that [were] submitted and signed on September 13, 2005,” which are the documents that Plaintiffs now claim were forged. (Id. ¶¶ 188-89.) Plaintiffs entered into two mortgage agreements with Fremont on October 12, 2005. (Id. ¶ 262.) The first was a thirty-year mortgage for $405,000, with the first two years set at a fixed interest rate of 8.45%, and a variable, higher rate for the remaining twenty-eight years (the “first mortgage”). (Id.) The second loan was a fifteen-year mortgage for $22,500, at a fixed interest rate of 12.75% (the “second mortgage”). (Id.) At the closing, Plaintiffs signed another loan application with the same terms and information as were included on the application they signed on September 20, 2005 (albeit now with the higher 8.45% interest rate), and again signed and/or initialed disclosure statements, that, inter alia, indicated that the loans could be assigned, explained the mechanics of their ARM loan and that the interest rate would change after the first two years, and listed the fees to be paid to the mortgage broker. (Compl. Ex. 13.) Plaintiffs allege that WCS was paid $11,365 in application and broker fees from the loan proceeds, and that Fremont paid WCS an additional $6,050 as a yield spread premium. (Am. Compl. ¶ 75.) 2. Plaintiffs’ Race-Related Allegations Plaintiffs allege that Tanenbaum used a “race-based” sales pitch that emphasized WCS’s “purported loyalties to lenders nationwide and other borrowers and minority home buyers like the Plaintiffs,” and that was “consciously intended to overcome and disarm prospective minority home buyers and borrowers.” (Id. ¶¶ 146-47.) According to Plaintiffs, Tanenbaum “aggressively continued to play upon the race issue.” (Id. ¶ 148.) Plaintiffs further state that “[u]pon information and belief, [ ] WCS [ ] targeted its discriminatory activities against people of color and neighborhoods in northern New York in which the majority of residents are non-white” (id. ¶ 197), but they do not specify the basis for this belief, the discriminatory activities to which they are referring, or how the targeting was conducted. Plaintiffs also allege that “Defendants targeted minority homeowner borrowers with bogus financing terms and grossly unfair lending products for the sole purpose of sandbagging borrowers at closing by steering them into unsafe and unsound adjustable rate mortgage products at the eleventh hour.” (Id. ¶ 271). According to Plaintiffs, these unfair loans “were aggressively marketed through Fremont’s network of brokers to the African-American homeowners.” (Id. ¶ 604.) In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Fremont and WCS “targeted African-Americans for higher cost subprime mortgage loans, while directing Caucasian applicants, with the same qualifications after accounting for risk, into lower cost loans,” and that Plaintiffs themselves were targeted as part of this scheme. (Id. ¶¶ 556, 558.) Plaintiffs further assert, without providing any supporting facts, that “Defendants intentionally providing [sic] Plaintiffs with grossly inferior terms, conditions, and/or privileges of services in connection with the financing transaction on the basis of race and color.” (Id. ¶ 568.) S. Post-Closing Events Fremont transferred the servicing of Plaintiffs’ first mortgage to American’s Servicing Company (“ASC”) on February 1, 2006. (Compl. Ex. 9.) Plaintiffs also allege that this loan was “securitized and placed into a trust,” of which U.S. Bank is the trustee and current custodian. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 281-82.) According to Plaintiffs, they made monthly payments exceeding $4,000 including taxes and insurance for eight months after the closing, at which point, having realized that they would be unable to refinance the loans, and having fallen behind in their bills and incurred substantial debt, they began unsuccessfully to try to modify the loans. (Id. ¶¶ 55, 200.) Plaintiffs stopped making payments on their first mortgage in September 2006. (Id. ¶ 84.) On December 26, 2006, U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure action against Plaintiffs in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange. (Decl. of Steven M. Hecht in Supp. of Def. U.S. Bank’s Mot. to Dismiss the Am. Compl. Ex. F.) On December 28, 2006, Plaintiffs sent a letter to ASC as a “formal notice” that they were exercising their right of rescission and cancelling their loan based on violations of TILA. (Compl. Ex. 8, at unnumbered page 1.) On January 2 and 8, 2007, Plaintiffs submitted letters to various state and federal agencies alleging TILA, HOEPA, RESPA, FHA, and ECOA violations by Fremont, U.S. Bank, and WCS. (Id. Ex. 10, at unnumbered pages 1, 7, 17, 21.) Plaintiffs allege that on or about March 7, 2007, the New York State Banking Department provided Plaintiffs with a copy of WCS’s response to their complaint, including copies of the various closing documents, mortgage application, and pre-disclosure documents, although Plaintiffs also allege that it was actually Fremont that submitted these documents to the Banking Department in response to Plaintiffs’ complaints. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 287, 392, 397.) B. Procedural Background Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed an initial complaint on January 31, 2008 against FGC, FIL, WCS, Tanenbaum, ASC, U.S. Bancorp, and U.S. Bank. (Dkt. No. 1.) Pursuant to the order of the Honorable John G. Koeltl, dated November 26, 2008 (Dkt. No. 47), Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on December 12, 2008, (Dkt. No. 48). Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint added McBean, 3 Day Appraisal Services, Phil Aarons, David Abrams, Gailen Properties, Inc., GFI Mortgage Bankers, Inc., John and Jane Doe, and XYZ-1 and XYZ-2 Corporations as Defendants. (Dkt. No. 48.) On August 8, 2009, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 89.) The Court held a conference with the Parties on October 27, 2009. (Dkt. No. 94.) On November 12, 2009, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Defendants ASC, U.S. Bancorp, Phil Aarons, David Abrams, Gailen Properties, Inc., and GFI Mortgage Bankers, Inc., without prejudice. (Letter from Pis. to the Ct., dated Nov. 9, 2009 (Dkt. No. 95).) On March 3, 2010, Defendants WCS, U.S. Bank, and Fremont filed the instant motions to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims in the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 106, 110, 117.) The Court held oral argument on March 9, 2011, (Dkt. No. 121.) II. Discussion A. Standard of Review 1. General Standards “On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint, the court must accept a plaintiffs factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiffs] favor.” Gonzalez v. Caballero, 572 F.Supp.2d 463, 466 (S.D.N.Y.2008); see also Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir.2008) (“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Furthermore, when considering a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint, the court must interpret the complaint liberally to raise the strongest claims that the allegations suggest. See Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 597 (2d Cir.2000); see also Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam) (noting that courts should hold pro se pleadings “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” (citation omitted)). However, mere “conclusions of law or unwarranted deductions” need not be accepted. First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763, 771 (2d Cir.1994). The Supreme Court has held that “[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (second alteration in Twombly) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Instead, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “[fjactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” id, and that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint,” id. at 563, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. If a plaintiff “ha[s] not nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, [his] complaint must be dismissed.” Id.; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged— but it has not ‘shown’ — ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” (alteration and citation omitted) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2))). Generally, “[i]n adjudicating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court must confine its consideration to facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” Leonard F. v. Isr. Disc. Bank of N.Y., 199 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 547 F.3d 406, 424-25 (2d Cir.2008) (holding that district court properly took judicial notice of and considered media reports, state court complaints, and regulatory filings on a motion to dismiss); Munno v. Town of Orangetown, 391 F.Supp.2d 263, 268 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (“The court may also consider matters of which judicial notice may be taken, even if the corresponding documents are not attached to or incorporated by reference in the complaint.”). In the motion to dismiss context, however, the court should generally take judicial notice “to determine what statements [the documents] contain[ ] ... not for the truth of the matters asserted.” Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir.1991). As previously mentioned, Plaintiffs attached numerous exhibits to their initial Complaint (Dkt. No. I), but appear mistakenly not to have attached them again to their Amended Complaint. In light of Plaintiffs’ pro se status, the Court will treat these exhibits as if they were attached to the Amended Complaint, and has considered them in deciding these motions to dismiss. B. TILA Claim As previously noted, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains seven federal and fifteen state causes of action. The Court will first consider the federal causes of action. In their eleventh cause of action, Plaintiffs claim that all of the Moving Defendants violated TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., by failing to provide required material disclosures and by making “one or more material changes to the terms of the consumer credit transaction based upon forged signature [sic] and falsified information in the mortgage application and pre-disclosure documents.” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 392-93.) For these alleged misdeeds, Plaintiffs seek rescission of their mortgages and monetary damages. (Id. ¶ 399.) TILA was enacted by Congress 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 .... ” 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a); see also Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412, 118 S.Ct. 1408, 140 L.Ed.2d 566 (1998) (discussing TILA’s purpose). Accordingly, “TILA requires that creditors provide borrowers with clear and accurate disclosures of terms dealing with things like finance charges, annual percentage rates of interest, and the borrower’s rights, as well as notice of the borrower’s right of rescission.” Fiorenza v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, No. 08-CV-858, 2008 WL 2517139, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Creditors who fail to comply with these disclosure requirements are subject to civil liability. See id. at *3; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a). “Consistent with its purpose, TILA is meant to be construed liberally in favor of the consumer.” Schnall v. Marine Midland Bank, 225 F.3d 263, 267 (2d Cir.2000) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “TILA achieves its remedial goals by a system of strict liability in favor of the consumers when mandated disclosures have not been made.” Smith v. Fid. Consumer Disc. Co., 898 F.2d 896, 898 (3d Cir.1990). Indeed, a “court need find only a single violation of the statutory requirements to hold [a] defendant liable under TILA.” Clement v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 145 F.Supp.2d 206, 210 (D.Conn. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1. Rescission Plaintiffs seek rescission under 15 U.S.C. § 1635, which states that: [e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of any consumer credit transaction ... in which a security interest ... is or will be retained or acquired in any property which is used as the principal dwelling of the person to whom credit is extended, the obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the information and rescission forms required under this section together with a statement containing the material disclosures required under this subchapter 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). In addition to these requirements, the creditor is required to “clearly and conspicuously disclose” this rescission right. Id. However, certain types of transactions are specifically exempted from this right of rescission, including “a residential mortgage transaction.” Id. § 1635(e)(1); see also Ng v. HSBC Mortg. Corp., No. 07-CV-5434, 2010 WL 889256, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2010) (noting that § 1635(a) “is wholly inapplicable in the context of residential mortgages”); Eubanks v. Liberty Mortg. Banking Ltd., 976 F.Supp. 171, 174 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (“Rescission is not an available remedy for residential mortgages.”). A residential mortgage transaction is defined as one in which “a mortgage, deed of trust, purchase money security interest arising under an installment sales contract, or equivalent consensual security interest is created or retained against the consumer’s dwelling to finance the acquisition or initial construction of such dwelling.” 15 U.S.C. § 1602(w); see also Ng, 2010 WL 889256, at *8. Plaintiffs allege that they never received the required rescission notices from Defendants, and therefore claim that they are now entitled to rescind the transaction. Defendants Fremont and U.S. Bank, however, assert that pursuant to § 1635(e), Plaintiffs’ had no right to rescind this transaction, and accordingly, Defendants were not required to provide notice of a right to rescind. (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Defs. Fremont Reorganizing Corporation f/k/a Fremont Investment & Loan, and Fremont General Corporation’s Mot. to Dismiss the Compl. Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 11 U.S.C. 362(a) (“Fremont Mem.”) ¶ 30; Mem. of Law. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss the Am. Compl. Against Def. U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Master Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-FRE-l (“U.S. Bank Mem.”) 16-17.) The Court finds that the Amended Complaint and attached documents undisputedly establish that the funds Plaintiffs received from Fremont were used to finance the acquisition of the Newburgh home, and that Plaintiffs planned to, and did, use the home as their dwelling. As such, this was a residential mortgage transaction, and Plaintiffs have no right to rescission. See Ng, 2010 WL 889256, at *8 (concluding that § 1635 was inapplicable to a transaction that “clearly qualifies as a ‘residential mortgage transaction’ ” because “it [was] undisputed that the two mortgages entered into by [the plaintiff] allowed him to purchase the property in question[,] [where] ... the complaint asserts [both] that the plaintiff resides at the property that is the subject of the mortgages here, and ... that the mortgage loans were used to purchase that property”); see also Nembhard v. Citibank, N.A., No. 96-CV-3330, 1996 WL 622197, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 1996) (noting that “[s]inee the complaint itself and the loan documents submitted as exhibits to the complaint unambiguously state that the funds were used to finance the acquisition of the home ... to be occupied by the plaintiff,” there is no right of rescission under TILA). Thus, Defendants were not required to provide notice of a right to rescission, and their alleged failure to do so was not a TILA violation. See Allah v. New Century Mortg. Corp., No. 06-CV-3031, 2006 WL 3196851, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2006) (concluding that because the transaction was a residential mortgage, the plaintiff could “prove no set of facts that entitle him to relief under [TILA] for [the defendant’s] failure to disclose a right to rescind”). 2. Damages The Moving Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ claim for monetary damages under TILA is time-barred. (Fremont Mem. ¶ 29; U.S. Bank Mem. 14-15; Def. WCS Lending, LLC’s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Pis.’ Am. Compl. (“WCS Mem.”) 13-14.) Private actions for damages based on TILA violations are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. See Johnson v. Scala, No. 05-CV-5529, 2007 WL 2852758, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2007); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (“Any action under this section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.”); McAnaney v. Astoria Fin. Corp., No. 04-CV-1101, 2007 WL 2702348, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2007) (“[T]he plain language of Section 1640(e) and the cases interpreting that statute indicate that, where a damages claim under TILA is time-barred, the Court is prohibited from even reaching the question of whether the defendant has violated TILA.”). “It is well-settled law that in ‘closed-end credit’ transactions, like the one at issue, the ‘date of the occurrence of [the] violation’ is no later than the date the plaintiff enters the loan agreement, or possibly, when defendant performs by transmitting the funds to plaintiffs.” Cardiello v. Money Store, Inc., No. 00-CV-7332, 2001 WL 604007, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2001) (footnote omitted) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e)) (collecting cases), aff'd, 29 Fed.Appx. 780 (2d Cir.2002); see also Johnson, 2007 WL 2852758, at *3 (“Case law supports the notion that the statute of limitations for TILA claims does not start running upon the discovery of the non-disclosure, but, rather, upon the funding of the loan.”). Here, it is undisputed that the mortgage loan transactions closed on October 12, 2005. (Am. Compl. ¶ 73.) Thus, the applicable statute of limitations ran on October 12, 2006, over a year before Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing the initial Complaint on January 31, 2008. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiffs assert that the limitations period for their TILA claims should be tolled, arguing “that because of the fraudulent concealment of material facts, they were prevented from learning about the misconduct(s) by WCS and Fremont and the forged documents in Fremont’s underwriting loan files until March 30, 2007.” (Pis.’ Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Defs., Fremont Reorganizing Corporation f/k/a/ Fremont Investment and Loan and Fremont General Corporation’s Mot. to Dismiss the Am. Compl. (“PI. Opp’n to Fremont”) at unnumbered page 9.) Plaintiffs also claim that they “allege that [D]efendants deceptively concealed its [sic] violations, and therefore, the equitable tolling doctrine should apply.” (Pis.’ Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Def., WCS Lending, LLC’s Mot. to Dismiss the Am. Compl. (“PI. Opp’n to WCS”) 13.) “Equitable tolling is available in ‘rare and exceptional circumstances,’ where the court finds that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ prevented the party from timely performing a required act, and that the party ‘acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period he sought to toll.’ ” Williams v. Aries Fin., LLC, No. 09-CV-1816, 2009 WL 3851675, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2009) (alterations omitted) (quoting Walker v. Jastremski, 430 F.3d 560, 563 (2d Cir.2005)); see also Cardiello, 2001 WL 604007, at *4 (explaining that equitable tolling may supersede an expired statute of limitations where a plaintiff establishes “(1) that the defendant concealed from him the existence of his cause of action, (2) that he remained in ignorance of that cause of action until some point within [the applicable statutory period] of the commencement of his action, and (3) that his continuing ignorance was not attributable to lack of diligence on his part” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “Stated differently, equitable tolling is permitted where the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversary’s misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass.” Coveal v. Consumer Home Mortg., Inc., No. 04-CV-4755, 2005 WL 704835, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Williams, 2009 WL 3851675, at *6 (“The Second Circuit has held that equitable tolling is appropriate ‘where the defendant is responsible for concealing the existence of plaintiffs cause of action.’ ” (alterations omitted) (quoting Veltri v. Bldg. Serv. 32B-J Pension Fund, 393 F.3d 318, 322 (2d Cir.2004))). Thus, “[i]n cases involving TILA, ‘the courts have held uniformly that fraudulent conduct beyond the nondisclosure itself is necessary to equitably toll the running of the statute of limitations[,]’ ... because if the very nondisclosure or misrepresentation that gave rise to the TILA violation also tolled the statute of limitations, the effect of the statute of limitations would be nullified.” Cardiello, 2001 WL 604007, at *5 (emphasis added) (citations omitted) (quoting Pettola v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 44 F.Supp.2d 442, 450 (D.Conn.1999)); see also Jones v. Saxon Mortg., Inc., 980 F.Supp. 842, 846 (E.D.Va. 1997) (“[Fraudulent concealment requires some act in addition to the commission of the initial fraudulent act because it implies conduct affirmatively directed at deflecting litigation.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, although Plaintiffs state in their opposition to WCS’s motion that Defendants concealed their violations (PI. Opp’n to WCS 13) — as opposed to just the original nondisclosures — this is not alleged in the Amended Complaint; nor do Plaintiffs specify which Defendants concealed the violations, or how they were concealed. The Amended Complaint does state that Plaintiffs did not discover the forged and falsified documents until March 7, 2007, when either WCS or Fremont allegedly submitted the documents to the New York State Banking Department in response to complaints Plaintiffs filed with various federal and state regulatory agencies. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 287, 392, 397.) However, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants did anything to fraudulently conceal these documents, or the other purported TILA-violating nondisclosures, from Plaintiffs. To warrant equitable tolling, Plaintiffs must plead that Defendants took some action to conceal the TILA violations during the one-year applicable statutory period following the consummation of the loan on October 12, 2005. See McAnaney, 2007 WL 2702348, at *7. The Amended Complaint fails to do so. Therefore, “Plaintiffs fail to satisfy their pleading burden to allege efforts by [ ][D]efendants, above and beyond the wrongdoing upon which [Plaintiffs’ claim is founded, to prevent, by fraud or deception, [ ] [P] laintiffs from suing in time.” Coveal, 2005 WL 704835, at *5 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Williams, 2009 WL 3851675, at *7 (declining to apply equitable tolling where the acts of concealment alleged by the plaintiff were the same acts that the plaintiff alleged were the underlying TILA violations). In addition, despite Plaintiffs’ assertion that they did not learn of the fraudulent documents until either March 7, 2007 (Am Compl. ¶ 392), or March 30, 2007 (PI. Opp’n to Fremont at unnumbered page 9), Plaintiffs submitted a letter to ASC on December 28, 2006, attempting to rescind the loan transaction due to TILA violations, (Compl. Ex. 8, at unnumbered page 1). Plaintiffs also submitted a letter to New York’s Banking Department, Office of the Attorney General, and other agencies on January 8, 2007, stating that the purpose of the letter was “to file a formal and official complaint” against WCS, Fremont, and U.S. Bank, for violations of HOEPA, TILA, and RESPA, and specifically asserting that Fremont and WCS submitted false documentation. (Id. Ex. 10, at unnumbered pages 21-23.) These letters demonstrate that Plaintiffs were aware of potential TILA violations more that a year prior to filing their initial Complaint in this case. Thus, Plaintiffs have not currently pled facts that would entitle them to equitable tolling, and the statute of limitations bars their claim for monetary damages under TILA. See Coveal, 2005 WL 704835, at *7 (dismissing TILA claim where the plaintiffs filed their complaint more than a year after a state court action demonstrated their awareness of their federal claim); Van Pier v. Long Island Sav. Bank, 20 F.Supp.2d 535, 536 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (con-eluding that equitable tolling was unavailable, despite the plaintiffs claim that the defendants fraudulently concealed their TILA violations, because the plaintiff filed a state court complaint alleging TILA violations over a year before he filed his federal court action). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims for rescission and damages pursuant to TILA are dismissed with prejudice. C. HOEPA Claim Plaintiffs’ twelfth cause of action, which is brought against all of the Moving Defendants, alleges HOEPA violations. (Am Compl. ¶ 408.) U.S. Bank argues that Plaintiffs’ mortgage is not a loan governed by HOEPA. (U.S. Bank Mem. 16.) This assertion is correct. “[A] HOEPA loan is defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1602(aa) as a mortgage that is a ‘consumer credit transaction that is secured by the consumer’s principal dwelling, other than a residential mortgage transaction ....’” Johnson, 2007 WL 2852758, at *4 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1602(aa)) (concluding that HOEPA did not apply because the loan at issue was a purchase money mortgage loan and not a second loan or refinancing); see also Campanella v. Aurora Loan Servicing, No. 10-CV-684, 2010 WL 5315963, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2010) (“HOEPA ... is not applicable as this was not a refinance transaction.”); McAnaney v. Astoria Fin. Corp., 665 F.Supp.2d 132, 155 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (“The statutory definition of HOE-PA-covered mortgages includes loans that are secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling, but specifically carves out residential mortgage transactions under its plain terms.”); Nelson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, 707 F.Supp.2d 309, 312 n. 4 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (“HOEPA does not apply to principal residential mortgages.”). Accordingly, because Plaintiffs’ loans are residential mortgages, they are not covered by HOEPA, and this claim is dismissed with prejudice. D. RESPA Plaintiffs’ sixteenth cause of action, brought against all of the Moving Defendants, alleges RESPA violations. Congress enacted RESPA “to effect certain changes in the settlement process for residential real estate that will result,” inter alia, “in more effective advance disclosure to home buyers and sellers of settlement costs” and “in the elimination of kickbacks or referral fees that tend to increase unnecessarily the costs of certain settlement services.” 12 U.S.C. § 2601(b). Plaintiffs allege that WCS and Fremont violated RESPA by (1) “giving or accepting kickbacks or other things of value in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a),” and (2) “giving a portion, split, or percentage of charges made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed, in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b).” (Am. Compl. ¶ 514.) The Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ RESPA claim also is time-barred. (Fremont Mem. ¶ 32; WCS Mem. 18; U.S. Bank Mem. 19.) “Violations of Section 2607 of RESPA are subject to a one-year statute of limitations from the date of the occurrence of the violation.” Done v. HSBC Bank USA No. 09-CV-4878, 2010 WL 3824146, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 19, 2010); see also 12 U.S.C. § 2614 (establishing one-year statute of limitations for violations of § 2607). Thus, the statute of limitations expired on October 12, 2006. Plaintiffs argue that their RES-PA claim is in the nature of recoupment, and thus excepted from the one-year statute of limitation mandated by § 2614. (Pis.’ Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Defs., U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the Master Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-FRE-l Mot. to Dismiss the Am. Compl. at unnumbered page 17.) However, as discussed supra note 25, Plaintiffs are asserting their RESPA claim affirmatively in this action; thus any potential claim of defensive recoupment is inapplicable. In addition, even drawing all inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, Plaintiffs have not stated any facts that would justify tolling the statute. Plaintiffs have not pled that they were unaware of their RE SPA cause of action within the statutory period, let alone that Defendants concealed its existence. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ January 8, 2007 letter to the state and federal agencies clearly indicates that Plaintiffs were aware of a purported RESPA violation more than a year prior to commencing this action. (Compl. Ex. 10, at unnumbered page 21.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ RE SPA claim is also time-barred, and must be dismissed with prejudice. E. FHA Claim Plaintiffs’ eighteenth cause of action, brought against all of the Moving Defendants, alleges violations of the FHA, which provides that “it shall be unlawful ... [t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race .... ” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). In addition, “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person ... in the terms or conditions of such a transaction, because of race .... Id. § 3605(a). A “residential real estate-related transaction” means “(1) [t]he making or purchasing of loans or providing other financing assistance [ ] for purchasing ... a dwelling ... [or] (2)[t]he selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real property.” Id. § 3605(b). Plaintiffs allege that Fremont and WCS “targeted African-Americans for higher cost subprime mortgage loans, while directing Caucasian applicants, with the same qualifications after accounting for risk, into lower cost loans,” and that Plaintiffs themselves were targeted as part of this scheme. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 556, 558.) Plaintiffs claim that Fremont and WCS “engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination” based on race, or that, alternatively, their facially neutral policies “had a discriminatory effect and created statistical disparities,” which will continue to have a disparate impact on other African-Americans. {Id. ¶¶ 559-60, 564.) Plaintiffs further allege that “Defendants intentionally provid[ed] Plaintiffs with grossly inferior terms, conditions, and/or privileges of services in connection with the financing transaction on the basis of race and color.” {Id. ¶ 568.) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ FHA claim also must be dismissed as time-barred. (WCS Mem. 19; U.S. Bank Mem. 21.) Claims brought pursuant to the FHA are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A) (“An aggrieved person may commence a civil action ... not later than 2 years after the occurrence or the termination of an alleged discriminatory housing practice.”); see also Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., No. 07-CV-7587, 2009 WL 804137, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2009) (“The statute of limitations for private causes of action under the FHAA is two years.”). According to U.S. Bank, “the Fair Housing Act allegations in the Amended Complaint are solely predicated on the acts of WCS, Fremont, and Tanenbaum in making and funding the loan, which closed on October 12, 2005.” (U.S. Bank Mem. 21; see also WCS Mem. 20 (stating that the Amended Complaint does not allege that any purported acts of discrimination occurred after October 12, 2005, when the transaction closed).) Indeed, Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants intentionally provided them with an unfair loan because of their race is based on conduct that, with respect to Plaintiffs, undoubtedly concluded with the close of the transaction on October 12, 2005. Thus, the limitations period for this claim expired on October 12, 2007, approximately three-and-a-half months before Plaintiffs filed this action. See Davenport v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, 725 F.Supp.2d 862, 875 (N.D.Cal.2010) (dismissing FHA claim as untimely where the plaintiff had not alleged any unlawful conduct after the origination and culmination of her loan, which occurred more than two years prior to her filing her complaint); Phan v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., No. 09-CV-328, 2010 WL 1268013, at *3 (M.D.Fla. Mar. 29, 2010) (dismissing FHA claim as time-barred because it was based on alleged “discrimination [that] occurred at or before loan origination,” two- and-a-half years before the complaint was filed); Goodwin v. Exec. Tr. Servs., LLC, 680 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1251 (D.Nev.2010) (dismissing FHA claim where “[t]he conduct giving rise to [the] claim [was] the issuance of a ‘less-than-favorable loan,’ ” and the statute of limitations began running on the date the plaintiff executed the deed of trust, more than two years before she initiated the action); Pantoja v. Scott, No. 96-CV-8593, 2001 WL 1313358, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2001) (where the plaintiffs FHA claim alleged a discriminatory failure to provide secondary financing, the plaintiff had until two years after the date of closing to initiate his suit). In their opposition papers to the motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs failed to address any of the Moving Defendants’ arguments in support of dismissal of the FHA claim. However, given Plaintiffs’ pro se status, the Court has still assessed whether Plaintiffs’ FHA claim could be considered timely under any applicable doctrine, but concludes that no such doctrine helps Plaintiffs in this instance. First, equitable tolling cannot apply here. As already discussed, to toll a limitations period, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant concealed the cause of action’s existence, and that the plaintiff remained unaware of it until some point within the applicable statutory period of commencing the action. See Cardiello, 2001 WL 604007, at *4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), these elements of fraudulent concealment must be pled with particularity. See Armstrong v. McAlpin, 699 F.2d 79, 88 (2nd Cir.1983) (“Appellants’ generalized and conclusory allegations of fraudulent concealment do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b).”); Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., No. 99-CV-793, 2005 WL 500377, at *8 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 2, 2005) (“Courts have held that Rule 9(b) applies to ... fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations.” (internal citations omitted)). Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the Moving Defendants concealed Plaintiffs’ FHA claim from them during the applicable statute of limitations; nor does the Amended Complaint indicate when Plaintiffs first became aware of their FHA claim. See Barkley v. Olympia Mortg. Co., No. 04-CV-875, 2007 WL 2437810, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2007) (“[T]he [c]ourt cannot conclude that equitable tolling applies in this instance, since plaintiffs do not identify the date or dates by which they knew about their Fair Housing Act claims.”). Second, the continuing violation doctrine is also inapplicable. “The ‘continuing violation’ doctrine applies when a plaintiff challenges ‘not just one incident of conduct violative of the Act, but an unlawful practice that continues into the limitations period.’ ” Shelter Inc. Realty v. City of New York, No. 01-CV-7015, 2007 WL 29380, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2007) (quoting Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 380-81, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982)). Where it applies, the doctrine delays “the commencement of the statute of limitations period ... until the last discriminatory act in furtherance of’ the alleged discriminatory policy. Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176, 181 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, courts in the Second Circuit “have been loath to apply [the continuing violation doctrine] absent a showing of compelling circumstances.” Trinidad v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., 423 F.Supp.2d 151, 165 n. 11 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the Amended Complaint refers to a “pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis on [sic] race” (Am. Compl. ¶ 559), asserts that WCS “routinely targeted] its fraudulent activities to members of African-American communities” (id. ¶ 540), and alleges that “Fremont continue [sic] to provide mortgage loans to Caucasian applicants with similar qualifications on significantly more favorable terms,” (id. ¶ 564). However, these statements, culled together, are insufficient to plead a continuing violation. Plaintiffs allege no act, taken against them by any Defendant after October 12, 2005, that could state a claim under the FHA. Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts (as opposed to conclusory legal claims) establishing that any Defendant had a specific discriminatory policy that violates the FHA, or directed acts towards any specified person other than Plaintiffs, that violated the FHA. The Amended Complaint includes detailed statistics and research regarding purported systematic racial discrimination in lending practices. (Id. ¶¶ 5-7, 11-14.) Yet, it does not contain allegations against these specific Defendants that would justify applying the continuing violation doctrine. The courts that have found a continuing violation of the FHA have done so in cases involving multiple plaintiffs alleging multiple, specific, and ongoing acts of discrimination, on specific dates, as opposed to general assertions that the defendants engaged in discriminatory practices, as the Plaintiffs have pleaded in the present action. See, e.g., Barkley, 2007 WL 2437810, at *16 (applying the continuing violation doctrine where the plaintiffs based their allegations on a review of the properties sold by the defendants during the statutory period). Conversely, vague or conclusory claims regularly meet dismissal. See, e.g., Shelter, 2007 WL 29380, at *12 (continuing violation doctrine inapplicable where “plaintiffs have only made vague and unsubstantiated blanket accusations regarding these assertions”); Pantoja, 2001 WL 1313358, at *10-11 (declining to apply continuing violation doctrine where the plaintiff had not specifically alleged that the defendant denied secondary financing to him or to other Hispanics after the statute of limitations date). Thus, as currently pled, the Amended Complaint fails to allege a continuing violation of the FHA. Plaintiffs’ FHA claim is therefore untimely, and accordingly is dismissed with prejudice. F. ECOA Claim In their nineteenth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that the Moving Defendants violated the ECOA, which makes it “unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction [ ] on the basis of race ...15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1). Plaintiffs allege that Fremont and WCS violated ECOA by “knowingly targeting members of Plaintiffs’ race and gender, and steering them to the extension of mortgage financing in a principal amount known to exceed the fair market value of the property, on terms that are onerous to the borrower, but highly profitable to the Defendants,” thereby inducing Plaintiffs to enter into unfair mortgage loans. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 582-83.) Plaintiffs also allege that they “were systematically and continuously extend [sic] mortgage credit by Defendants on a discriminatory basis,” citing the Order to Cease and Desist Fremont received from the FDIC on March 7, 2007 (id. ¶ 597), and claim that Fremont and WCS “will continue to engage in conduct that disregards the rights of African-Americans,” (id. ¶ 598). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ ECOA claim is also time-barred. (WCS Mem. 21; U.S. Bank Mem. 25.) The ECOA provides that no private action “shall be brought later than two years from the date of the occurrence of the violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(f); see also Coveal, 2005 WL 704835, at *3 (“A two-year statute of limitations governs ECOA claims.”). Again, in the absence of some exception, this means that Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred. Plaintiffs have not responded to these arguments in their opposition papers, but the Court again considers whether the Amended Complaint establishes that either the continuing violation or equitable tolling doctrines should apply here, and concludes that they are inapplicable. Plaintiffs have failed to establish that equitable tolling is justified here. As previously discussed, for equitable tolling to apply, Plaintiffs must plead that Defendants concealed from Plaintiffs the existence of their ECOA cause of action. See Cardiello, 2001 WL 604007, at *4. Plaintiffs have not alleged any such acts by any Defendant here. See Coveal, 2005 WL 704835, at *5 (declining to toll statute of limitations for ECOA claim, where the “[plaintiffs fail[ed] to satisfy their pleading burden to allege efforts by the defendants, above and beyond the wrongdoing upon which plaintiffs’ claim is founded, to prevent, by fraud or deception, the plaintiffs from suing in time” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Further, to toll the limitations period, Plaintiffs must allege that they did not learn of their ECOA cause of action until some point within the applicable statutory period (here, two years) before they commenced their action. See Cardiello, 2001 WL 604007, at *4. Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege when they became aware of their ECOA claim; thus, the Court is unable to conclude that equitable tolling is appropriate. See Trakansook v. Astoria Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass’n, No. 06-CV-1640, 2007 WL 1160433, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2007) (concluding that the limitations period could not be tolled where the plaintiff had “pointed to no event within the limitations period that first led her to believe [the defendant’s] actions were discriminatory”); Coveal, 2005 WL 704835, at *7 (concluding that a claim was untimely, despite the plaintiffs’ assertion in a legal memorandum that they were unaware of their ECOA claim until they met with lawyers, because such allegations must be pled in the complaint); cf. Phillips v. Better Homes Depot, Inc., No. 02-CV-1168, 2003 WL 25867736, at *25 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2003) (finding that equitable tolling was warranted where the plaintiff alleged that she did not become aware that she was discriminated against until she met with an attorney on a specified date less than two years before she filed her complaint); Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co., No. 00-CV-8330, 2002 WL 88431, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2002) (same). In addition, for the same reasons set forth with respect to their FHA claim, Plaintiffs have not pled a continuing violation of the ECOA. Plaintiffs allege that they were systematically and continuously extended credit on a discriminatory basis, yet they have not pled any act, taken by any Defendant, after the credit transaction closed on October 12, 2005. Moreover, although Plaintiffs do seem to allege that Defendants have discriminated against other African-Americans as well, that is insufficient to establish a continuing violation, where Plaintiffs have alleged no specific instances of other discriminatory acts, nor dates on which this conduct purportedly began or concluded. See Phillips, 2003 WL 25867736, at *24 (rejecting the plaintiffs argument that a continuing violation existed “because defendants continued to target minorities after it [sic] discriminated against her,” because the plaintiff made no allegation that these other victims and discriminatory conduct were related to her or her action). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ ECOA claim is untimely, and must be dismissed as against all Defendants with prejudice. G. Civil Rights Act Claims Plaintiffs’ twentieth cause of action asserts violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985(3) against all of the Moving Defendants. These claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, and accordingly, are timely. See Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp., 7 F.3d 1085, 1087 (2d Cir.1993) (per curiam). “To establish a claim under § 1981, a plaintiff must allege facts in support of the following elements: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a racial minority; (2) an intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the defendant; and (3) the discrimination concerned one or more of the activities enumerated in the statute (i.e., make and enforce contracts ...).” Id. Similarly, “[t]o maintain an action under § 1982, a plaintiff must allege that she was [intentionally] deprived of a property right because of her race.” Harary v. Allstate Ins. Co., 983 F.Supp. 95, 99 (E.D.N.Y.1997); see also Puglisi v. Underhill Park Taxpayer Ass’n, 947 F.Supp. 673, 700 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (noting that a § 1982 plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating, inter alia, that “the discrimination concerned one or more activities enumerated in [§ 1982] such as ... the purchase and lease of property”). “In order to survive a motion to dismiss, the events of the intentional and purposeful discrimination, as well as the racial animus constituting the motivating factor for the defendant’s actions must be specifically pleaded in the complaint.” Dove v. Fordham Univ., 56 F.Supp.2d 330, 338 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sanders v. Grenadier Realty, Inc., 367 Fed.Appx. 173, 175 (2d Cir.2010) (summary order) (upholding district court’s dismissal of § 1982 claim where “plaintiffs [did] not allege any facts supporting an inference of racial animus”). Thus, “[f]act-specific allegations of a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiffs race are required,” and “[c]onclusory or naked allegations will not suffice.” Dove, 56 F.Supp.2d at 338; see also Dickerson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 95-CV-10733, 1996 WL 445076, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 1996) (“It is not enough merely to assert that the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff, and that the action was the product of racial animus. The complaint must allege specific facts supporting both the existence of the racial animus and the inference of a link between the adverse treatment and the racial animus.”). Here, the Moving Defendants each argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege specific facts indicating that Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their race. (Fremont Mem. ¶¶ 65, 68-69; WCS Mem. 22-23; U.S. Bank Mem. 26.) Plaintiffs have not responded to these arguments in any of their opposition papers. However, the Court has still examined the Amended Complaint to determine if it sufficiently states a claim for this cause of action. Plaintiffs allege that Fremont and WCS “intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs by ... charging them higher interest rates than those charges [sic] to similarly-situated Caucasian mortgagees,” and that unfair loans “were aggressively marketed through Fremont’s network of brokers to the African-American homeowners.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 604.) Plaintiffs further claim that Tanenbaum used a “race-based” sales pitch (id. ¶¶ 146-47), and that Defendants targeted its discriminatory activities against minorities (id. ¶¶ 197, 271), without explaining how this targeting was conducted, or providing examples. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not specifically allege that Defendants took these purportedly discriminatory actions, or intended to take these actions, because Plaintiffs were African-American. Nor do Plaintiffs provide any facts in support of their contention that intentional discrimination occurred. Even after Boykin, these types of eonclusory allegations of discrimination, unsupported by specific factual allegations, have been found insufficient to state a claim under §§ 1981 and 1982. See Sanders, 367 Fed.Appx. at 175 (concluding that dismissal of § 1982 claim was proper because the plaintiffs’ allegation “that ‘defendants discriminated against plaintiffs on account of their race and national origin in violation of section 1982’ d[id] not state a plausible claim to relief,” and although a different paragraph in the complaint “d[id] allege facts consistent with a discrimination claim, i.e., that non-black residents were granted subsidies, it nevertheless ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief,’ because plaintiffs d[id] not allege any facts supporting an inference of racial animus” (alterations, emphasis, and citations omitted) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949)), Ng, 2010 WL 889256, at *12-13 (concluding that §§ 1981 and 1982 claims were wholly conclusory and lacked factual specificity); Reyes v. Fairfield Props., 661 F.Supp.2d 249, 269 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (dismissing § 1982 claim where “[n]o identification of particular events or facts underlying the race-based discrimination claims [was] set forth in the amended complaint”); see also Mian, 7 F.3d at 1088 (dismissing § 1981 claim because “an essential element ... is a requirement that the alleged discrimination took place because of the [plaintiffs] race,” and the “complaint fail[ed] to offer more than conclusory allegations that he was discriminated against because of his race”); Dove, 56 F.Supp.2d at 338 (dismissing § 1981 claim where the amended complaint was “devoid of facts to support [the plaintiffs] determination that the actions taken by [defendants were motivated by his race”); Harary, 983 F.Supp. at 99-100 (dismissing § 1982 claims