Tim Pagliara’s case was dismissed in the Virginia District Court (he still has a similar case vs Fannie active before the Delaware District Court) today.
Pagliara wanted to get a look into Freddie’s “books and records”. Simply put the judge ruled he did not have that right and even of he did, he did not have a proper reason, under the law to do so (he was admittedly on a fishing expedition for lack of a better term).
This has NO bearing on the case before Sweeney as that is a 5th amendment takings claim and Pagliara’s was not.
Pagliara does not persuade the Court that the above interpretation poses a serious risk of implicating the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. As an initial point, the Court need not resort to the interpretive cannon of constitutional avoidance here because HERA is not ambiguous within the context of this case. See Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 154 (2007) (noting the “canon of constitutional avoidance does not apply if a statute is not ‘genuinely susceptible to two constructions’”). Furthermore, Pagliara’s brief reference to constitutional avoidance fails to demonstrate any serious Fifth Amendment concern.
It also has no bearing on the case before the appellate court as that is not a “books and records” case (Lambreth’s). The type of case and claim matter because the test for each case to go forward in very different and the legal hurdles are also. Success or failure in one does not automatically translate to success or failure in another courts (unless the cases are identical).
Here is the judge’s decision: