LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on March 27 granted a motion filed by a loan servicer and lender to dismiss a borrower’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action with leave to amend and refused to remand her complaint to state court based on the amount-in-controversy requirement (Maria Ortega v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., et al., No. 17-7707, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50836).
PHILADELPHIA — Because a borrower could have asserted her fraud and breach of contract claims related to a loan modification in an underlying state foreclosure case, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 23 affirmed dismissal of the case as barred by the New Jersey entire controversy doctrine (Kimberly Shibles v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 17-2386, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7341).
BOSTON — After finding that a foreclosure sale was not void under Massachusetts law, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 23 affirmed dismissal of claims related to the foreclosure and the denial of a loan modification asserted by borrowers against several lenders and a loan servicer (Pedro A. Flores, et al. v. OneWest Bank, F.S.B., et al., No. 16-1385, 1st Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7424).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A borrower on March 13 filed a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of a district court’s decision that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) does not apply to nonjudicial foreclosure cases (Dennis Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307, U.S. Sup. 2018 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1101).
LAS VEGAS — A Nevada federal judge on March 20 granted summary judgment in favor of a bank, finding that a homeowners association foreclosed on a property pursuant to a Nevada housing statute that contains a notice scheme that was determined to be unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, finding that the original sale of the property remained intact and the interest in the property is held by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) (Bank of America, N.A., et al. v. Terraces At Rose Lake Homeowners Association, et al., No. 2:16-cv-01106, D. Nev., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45120).
CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on March 19 granted a motion filed by a bank and law firms to dismiss claims for violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) asserted against them in relation to a foreclosure but granted the borrower leave to amend certain FDCPA claims related to emails that may have been used to convince him that his legal claims had no merit (Rufus Cook v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 17-CV-00059, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44613).
CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9 found that borrowers waived their right to challenge a court’s ruling that their constitutional claims were barred by the doctrine established in Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), finding that they failed to object to a magistrate judge’s report recommending dismissal and, therefore, forfeited judicial review (Jesse White, et al. v. Mortgage Electronics Registration Systems Inc., No. 17-1498, 6th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 6079).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 16 affirmed a district court’s ruling granting dismissal of claims asserted by property owners against lenders, finding that claims were barred by res judicata and failed to state a claim (George O. Riley, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 17-20080, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 6656).
PHILADELPHIA — After determining that a nearly identical state court foreclosure case was pending, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9 affirmed a district court’s decision to abstain from adjudicating a borrower’s claim for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) against mortgage lenders (James L. Chambers Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 16-3162, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5924).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on March 9 announced that it has issued a final rule to help mortgage servicers communicate with borrowers that are potentially facing bankruptcy cases.
FRESNO, Calif. — A California federal judge on March 8 dismissed all of a borrower’s claims against a bank in relation to a property foreclosure but granted her leave to amend her cause of action for violation of the Elder Abuse/Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Delores Arzamendi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:17-cv-01485, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38382).
ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 5 affirmed dismissal of a borrower’s claims for breach of contract and violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against lenders and a loan servicer, finding that he lacked standing to sue and that he failed to properly serve his complaint on the bank (James Rudolph Cooley, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, et al., No. 16-14835, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5730).
NEW YORK — Trustees of a pension fund sued a mortgage company, its subsidiaries and related entities on March 5 in a class action in a New York federal court, asserting misconduct in subprime mortgage securitization in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Ronald E. Powell, et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corp., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01951, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO — After finding that borrowers could not challenge the validity of a loan modification agreement that they benefited from for six years before asserting claims, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 5 affirmed a court’s decision dismissing their claims for quiet tile and violation of the Truth and Lending Act (TILA) (Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., No. 17-15286, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5585).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 2 reversed a district court’s ruling that dismissed a borrower’s class action claims for violations of federal and state law in relation to a bank’s failure to pay interest on funds in his mortgage escrow account, finding that California escrow interest law was not preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA) (Donald M. Lusnak v. Bank of America N.A., No. 14-56755, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5400).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of appeals on March 2 dismissed a borrower’s appeal of a district court’s dismissal of his claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other California law claims against a bank, finding that all of the claims were barred by a statute of limitations (Bernard Mitchell v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, No. 16-15099, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5433).
SACRAMENTO, Calif.— The city of Sacramento on Feb. 23 sued two Wells Fargo entities in a California federal court, alleging that the bank engaged in discriminatory lending practices in relation to minority borrowers, resulting in an excessive number of foreclosures and damages to borrowers and the City (Sacramento v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., No. 2:18-at-00218, E.D. Calif.).
SEATTLE — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 1 reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for a bank in relation to a loan to build two homes, finding that the bank failed to convert a loan to permanent status pursuant to its agreement with the borrower and that triable issues of fact exist as to whether the bank honored an interest rate option (Marisa Spooner-Leduff v. SunTrust Mortgage Inc., No. 16-35038, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5252).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 26 reversed a decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), finding that further review of whether Fannie Mae breached a deed by failing to give appropriate notice of a foreclosure was warranted (S. Jay Williams, et al. v. Wells Fargo Investments Limited, et al., No. 16-20507, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4728).
GREENBELT, Md. — After finding that a borrower failed to show that mortgage servicers failed to respond to his request for information in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), a Maryland federal judge on Feb. 23 dismissed his complaint against the servicers without leave to amend (Anthony Pearson v. Select Portfolio Inc., et al., No. 17-1624, D. Md., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29482).