TUCSON, Ariz. — An Arizona federal judge on Oct. 29 granted a bank’s motion to intervene in a discovery dispute related to a purportedly defaulted U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guaranteed loan for the purpose of protecting documents it claimed were privileged, with the judge also agreeing about the documents’ privileged status (Sun Sky Hospitality LLC v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 4:18-cv-00094, D. Ariz., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184742).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A borrower on Oct. 31 sued a loan servicer and others in a California court, asserting claims for breach of contract, violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims, asserting that they improperly handled her loan modification (Eusebia Santiago v. Cooper, et al., No. 2018-00243508, Calif. Super., Sacramento Co.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — After finding that borrowers failed to show that a bank violated California’s Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR), a California federal judge on Oct. 31 dismissed the claims and causes of action for declaratory relief and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), as predicated on the HBOR cause of action (Bruno J. Bicocca v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-cv-01158, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186722).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — After finding that no genuine issues of material fact existed as to the status of a borrower’s loan, a California federal judge on Oct. 30 granted summary judgment on claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims against a loan servicer and lender in relation to a property foreclosure (Rani Yadav-Ranjan v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, No. 17-cv-03939, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186744).
SHERMAN, Texas — A Texas federal judge on Oct. 30 denied a bank’s request to strike allegations against it asserted by a group of relators, holding that the bank failed to show that its alleged conduct before a $25 billion settlement reached with the U.S. government and others did not relate to current allegations for violations of Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) guidelines (Michael J. Fisher, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 4:16-CV-00395, E.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185384).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal on Oct. 25 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a borrower’s claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against lenders for failure to state a claim, warning that it would issue sanctions against him if he files any future frivolous claims (Jerry Mason v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, et al., No. 17-10941, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30140).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 26 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of claims for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims, holding that borrowers failed to show that lenders engaged in business acts that were unlawful, unfair or fraudulent or that they submitted evidence to show that the lenders did not sufficiently respond to their qualified written requests (Jim Ross Meskimen, et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon, et al., No. 18-55394, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30320).
DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge on Oct. 25 granted a holding company’s emergency motion for retention of a court-appointed receiver, holding that an entity that purchased a property at foreclosure had no authority to file a state court lawsuit in an attempt to extinguish the holding company’s redemption interest in the property (The Sawyers and Lerner Building LLC v. Auto Club Lampost LLC, et al., No. 2:16-cv-11003, E.D. Mich., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183051).
CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on Oct. 23 granted a bank’s motion to dismiss a complaint filed by a borrower, holding that claims for breach of contract and other causes of action were barred by a foreclosure judgment (Navin Desai v. Hanmi Bank, No. 18-3621, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181467).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Oct. 19 said that a mortgage company has agreed to pay $13.2 million to settle claims that it violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, by falsely stating that it complied with Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance requirements.
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A borrower on Oct. 4 sued a loan servicer in a California court, asserting that it violated the California Homeowners Bill of Rights Act (HBOR) and unfair competition law (UCL) when it initiated the foreclosure process while his loan modification application was under review (Dennis Gonzales v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 2018-01022512, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).
TAMPA, Fla. — After finding that a fraud claim asserted by borrowers was an attempt to challenge a foreclosure judgment, a Florida federal judge on Oct. 17 affirmed a decision that their claims against a bank were barred by a previous foreclosure (Abelardo Alonso, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 8:17-cv-2547, M.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178123).
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A West Virginia federal judge on Oct. 15 allowed parts of claims for violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA) asserted by property owners in relation to the servicing of their loan to proceed, including a claim that the servicer continued to contact them to collect payment even though it knew they were represented by counsel (Jeffrey L. Moore, et al. v. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corp., No. 2:18-cv-01222, S.D. W.Va., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176730).
TRENTON, N.J. — A New Jersey appeals panel on Oct. 12 affirmed a trial court’s final judgment of foreclosure against a borrower, holding that all of her challenges to the decision were meritless (U.S. Bank National Association, et al. v. Ryung Hee Cho, No. 5299-16, N.J. Super., Chancery Div., 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2277).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A North Carolina federal judge on Oct. 12 affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an adversary proceeding filed by a borrower attempting to stop a foreclosure, holding that he failed to show that two banks did not have an interest in the loan or that the loan was void (Michael Tyler v. Wells Fargo, N.A., et al., No. 5:18-CV-31, E.D. N.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176259).
BOSTON — After holding that a bank and loan servicer had the authority to pursue foreclosure under the terms of a mortgage and that they did not violate a bankruptcy discharge, a Massachusetts federal judge on Oct. 9 dismissed a borrower’s claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), wrongful foreclosure and other causes of action (Jean Duplessis v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 18-cv-10226, D. Mass., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173596).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Oct. 4 dismissed numerous claims asserted by a trustee against a bank, holding that her claim for violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) was time-barred and that she did not show that the bank was a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (Natalie Price v. Grand Bank for Savings, FSB, et al., No. 18cv440, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172809).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on Sept. 26 partially granted a motion filed by lenders to dismiss claims for negligence, violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action but allowed a borrower’s claim for violation of California’s Homeowner’s Bill Of Rights (HBOR) to proceed, holding that she submitted sufficient evidence to possibly show that the defendants failed to meet their statutory obligations under the HBOR when they did not exercise due diligence in contacting her about her default (Chanell S. Watkins v. Ditech Financial LLC, et al., No. 2:17-cv-02247, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165718).
DALLAS — A Texas federal judge on Oct. 3 granted a loan servicer’s motion to dismiss claims for damages under the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures (RESPA) and fees, holding that a borrower failed to show that the servicer engaged in a pattern or practice in violation of RESPA (German Ruiz v. PennyMac Loan Services LLC, No. No. 3:18-CV-1544, N.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170460).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal judge on Oct. 1 refused to dismiss a borrower’s causes of action for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practice Act, holding that the FDCPA applied to an allegedly settled debt with her lender (Melinda Rudio v. Credit Control, LLC, No. 16-cv-03003, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169522).