A New Look at the U.S. Foreclosure Crisis: Panel Data Evidence of Prime and Subprime Borrowers
from 1997 to 2012

Fernando Ferreira and Joseph Gyourko
NBER Working Paper No. 21261
June 2015
JEL No. E0,G0,H0,J0,R0

ABSTRACT
Utilizing new panel micro data on the ownership sequences of all types of borrowers from 1997-2012
leads to a reinterpretation of the U.S. foreclosure crisis as more of a prime, rather than a subprime,
borrower issue. Moreover, traditional mortgage default factors associated with the economic cycle,
such as negative equity, completely account for the foreclosure propensity of prime borrowers relative
to all-cash owners, and for three-quarters of the analogous subprime gap. Housing traits, race, initial
income, and speculators did not play a meaningful role, and initial leverage only accounts for a small
variation in outcomes of prime and subprime borrowers.

Fernando Ferreira
The Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
1461 Steinberg – Dietrich Hall
3620 Locust Walk
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6302
and NBER
fferreir@wharton.upenn.edu

Joseph Gyourko
University of Pennsylvania
The Wharton School of Business
3620 Locust Walk
1480 Steinberg-Dietrich Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6302
and NBER
gyourko@wharton.upenn.edu

SFGate-

Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature illegally raided a state fund that was created to help distressed homeowners and took $331 million to balance the budget, a judge has ruled.

The money was taken from a fund that contained California’s share of a $5 billion nationwide settlement of a fraud suit by states and the federal government against the nation’s five largest mortgage lending companies: Bank of America, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC.

The settlement, which state Attorney General Kamala Harris negotiated in 2012 for California, was designated for foreclosure relief, aid to homeowners and other housing-related purposes. Starting in June 2012, however, Brown and the Legislature appropriated most of the fund to help pay down the state’s deficit over three fiscal years, through mid-2014.

 [SF GATE]

Photo: Max Whittaker/Prime, Special To The Chronicle

Reuters-

A U.S. judge on Monday awarded no damages to American International Group Inc shareholders led by former CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg in their lawsuit against the U.S. government, despite finding that the U.S. Federal Reserve exceeded its authority in the insurer’s 2008 bailout.

While Judge Thomas Wheeler of the Federal Court of Claims in Washington, D.C. sided with Greenberg on a key legal claim, the decision amounts to a pyrrhic victory that could help shield regulators from legal challenges to their responses in future financial crises.

In his opinion, Wheeler said the government showed “unduly harsh treatment” of AIG compared to other institutions it bailed out, but that shareholders ultimately benefited from the rescue.
ADVERTISING

“In the end, the Achilles’ heel of Starr’s case is that, if not for the government’s intervention, AIG would have filed for bankruptcy,” wrote Wheeler, who was appointed by George W. Bush.

[REUTERS]

Desert News-

Shurtleff allegedly accepted gifts from indicted businessman Jeremy Johnson, who contributed to the former attorney general’s campaign. Specifically, prosecutors say he used Johnson’s personal jet to fly to California for a campaign fundraiser. Johnson’s trial on 86 counts of fraud is scheduled for September.

The charges also say Shurtleff benefitted from the role he played in the state’s litigation with Bank of America to obtain settlements for Utahns who had lost their homes in the mortgage crisis.

Shurtleff pulled the state out of the case as one of his last acts in office in December 2012 and then went to work for Troutman Sanders, an international law firm that holds Bank of America as a major client. He quit six months later.

 [DESERT NEWS]

COMING TO YOU LIVE DIRECTLY FROM THE DUBIN LAW OFFICES AT HARBOR COURT, DOWNTOWN HONOLULU, HAWAII

 LISTEN TO KHVH-AM (830 ON THE AM RADIO DIAL)

ALSO AVAILABLE ON KHVH-AM ON THE iHEART APP ON THE INTERNET

Host: Gary Dubin –

Co-Host:  John Waihee –

 Please Join Us This Sunday, June 14, 2015

(Every Sunday’s Show Is Posted On The Past Broadcast Section Of This Website Usually On The Next Day)

It’s the Rules of Evidence — Stupid!

(click here to listen)

(click here to listen to court recording)

(click here to watch video of court recording)

.

Zero Hedge-

Over the past five years, first as a result of the 2010 robosigning scandal and then due to the natural build up of a massive backlog of cases in judicial states, which in some cases is well over 1000 days, America’s conventional house clearing mechanisms of foreclosure and bank repossessions had become clogged up to previously unseen levels.

Which was precisely how the banks wanted it: after all, by minimizing the supply of housing for sale, this served as an aritifical subsidy to the housing market. It achieved two things: it kept housing prices artificially high, and allowed millions to live in their house mortgage-free for years, while also providing a “spending stimulus” to millions who in lieu of spending cash on rent (or mortgage) could purchase discretionary items.

Five years later, however, with the stock market at all time highs and the housing recovery supposedly in full swing, albeit on an artificially inflated basis due to abnormally low inventory, the banks are starting to collect.

 [ZERO HEDGE]

FOX-

Bank analysts warn another crisis is in store for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which potentially means another bailout.

Fannie and Freddie’s earnings are now dropping after a surprisingly profitable 2013. Fannie Mae’s net income fell 83% in 2014 to $14.21 billion, while Freddie Mac’s fell 84% to $7.69 billion, SNL Financial notes. In the first quarter of 2015, Fannie reported only $1.89 billion in net income while Freddie posted $524 million, the bank research shop says.

Brad Bracey and Matt MacFarland at SNL Financial warn: “Some believe the institutions are now exposed to another downturn in the housing market.”

 [FOX]

Promontory has stacked its deck with not just prominent members of the US regulatory system but international central bank executives as well.

Business insider-

In the wake of the financial crisis, the banks and hedge funds of Wall Street were hit with a slew of new regulations.

If a bank or a fund broke any of the new rules, disaster could result.

Just months after Deutche Bank failed the Fed and Treasury department’s “stress test” earlier this year, both of its co-CEOs were suddenly out of a job.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-consulting-firm-hires-powerful-people-and-sells-their-knowledge-back-to-wall-street-2015-6#ixzz3cmAKWk67

NOTE: Sue Barnes aka Sue Ethridge because she signed as Barnes

___________________________

Excerpts:

Q. Have you had any other titles in
3 your role with MERS?
4 MR. DEIGHTON: Objection. The
5 documents speak for themselves.
6 Q. Well, the mortgage assignments
7 indicate that you’re vice president. Have you
8 ever been secretary or any other title, when
9 you signed a document for MERS?
10 MR. DEIGHTON: I’m going to object.
11 I’m going to point to Exhibit B, the third
12 page, which states that the list of candidates
13 on the fourth page are appointed as assistant
14 secretaries and vice presidents of MERS; and
15 we’re willing to stipulate that pursuant to
16 this agreement, that she would be both an
17 assistant secretary and vice president.
18 MR. MILLIGAN: Okay.
19 Q. Have you been in a role other than
20 assistant secretary or vice president for MERS?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Do you consider yourself a
23 corporate officer of MERS?
24 MR. DEIGHTON: Objection.
25 A. No.

Q. Have you ever been paid by MERS?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Have you ever received any type of
4 compensation from MERS?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Have you ever visited MERS’
7 corporate offices?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Have you ever spoken with any
10 corporate officers of MERS?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you know where MERS’ corporate
13 offices are located?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Have you ever spoken to anyone at
16 MERS?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Who have you spoken to at MERS?
19 A. I don’t recall their names.
20 Q. Do you recall the last time you
21 spoke with someone from MERS?
22 A. Years.
23 Q. Years ago?
24 A. (Nodding.)
25 Q. Five years?

MR. DEIGHTON: Objection.
2 A. I don’t recall.
3 Q. Do you recall who that person was?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you recall what the conversation
6 was about?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you recall how many
9 conversations you’ve had with people affiliated
10 with MERS?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Can you give a ballpark?
13 A. I don’t know.
14 Q. A dozen?
15 MR. SANDY: Objection.
16 Q. A couple dozen?
17 A. I don’t know.
18 Q. But it’s been years since you’ve
19 talked to anyone at MERS?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Did you have any obligation to
22 report to anyone at MERS?
23 MR. DEIGHTON: Objection.
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you ever report to anyone at
MERS?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did anyone at MERS direct your
4 activities?
5 MR. SANDY: Objection.
6 A. No.
7 Q. And you mentioned that years ago,
8 you had talked to someone at MERS. Would that
9 have been on a weekly basis, daily basis?
10 What’s the frequency with which you would speak
11 to someone at MERS?
12 A. Random.
13 Q. And what would be the reason for
14 those discussions?
15 A. Assistance of their website
16 typically.
17 Q. Assist with their website?
18 A. Assistance for me with their
19 website.
20 Q. What type of assistance would you
21 need?
22 A. Maneuvering it. Sometimes it was
23 changed and I couldn’t find what I needed to
24 find.

[…]

Q. Does anyone from MERS have an
4 office at Carlisle?
5 MR. DEIGHTON: Objection.
6 A. No.
7 Q. Are there any employees of MERS
8 that you work with?
9 MR. SANDY: Objection.
10 A. No.

[…]

Q. Is the complaint and mortgage
2 assignment department part of the foreclosure
3 department?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you know what Samantha would do,
6 what was her job duties?
7 MR. DEIGHTON: Objection. Can you
8 clean it up by limiting the period of time that
9 you’re asking about?
10 Q. On or around when the mortgage
11 assignment in this case was executed.
12 A. I don’t recall. She has worked in
13 many departments at the firm.
14 Q. Were you present when Samantha
15 notarized this?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Was Samantha present when you
18 signed the document?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you recall whether you signed
21 any other documents on November 17, 2010 in
22 front of Samantha?
23 A. I don’t recall.
24 Q. Do you know who prepared this
25 particular mortgage assignment, Exhibit C?

A. No.
2 Q. Who instructed you to execute this
3 mortgage assignment?
4 A. No one.
5 Q. No specific individual instructed
6 you?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Is there a policy at Carlisle
9 related to execution of mortgage assignments?
10 MR. DEIGHTON: Objection. That
11 seeks proprietary information.
12 Instruct my client not to answer.
13 Q. Did anyone from MERS instruct you
14 to sign —
15 MR. SANDY: Objection.
16 Q. — the mortgage assignment?
17 A. No.
18 Q. When the mortgage assignment is
19 presented to you, how long does the process
20 typically take to review, sign and notarize?
21 A. Fifteen minutes.
22 Q. Just so we’re clear, you do not get
23 any compensation from MERS?
24 MR. SANDY: Objection, asked and
25 answered.

A. That’s correct.
2 Q. Do you recall reviewing any of the
3 loan documents related to the property that’s
4 the subject of the mortgage assignment that’s
5 been identified as Exhibit C?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you recall having reviewed the
8 mortgage that was assigned?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Do you typically review the
11 mortgage before signing the mortgage
12 assignment?
13 A. Yes

Exhibits

2070574-Exhibit-B-1-Sue Ethridge-1

2070574-Exhibit-C-1-Sue Ethridge

2070574-Exhibit-D-1-Sue Ethridge

WALL STREET IS FIFA ON STEROIDS!!

HUFFPO-

Just imagine what Michael Lewis must think of the FIFA scandal. Although Michael Lewis is a prolific non-fiction author who has written about the misdeeds and abuses of Wall Street for a quarter of a century, he has never seen the highest law enforcement officials in the land throw the book at Wall Street as they did last week at the world soccer organization known as FIFA.

Lewis first burst on the scene 25 years ago when he published Liar’s Poker. Liar’s Poker described the world of bond trading and the development of mortgage-backed securities at Salomon Brothers where Lewis worked.

Salomon Brothers was the gorilla on Wall Street back then, before collapsing in ignominy in the wake of its failed effort to rig the Treasury auction. But mortgage-backed securities lived on, and ultimately morphed into the complex securities that brought the world financial system to its knees in 2008.

 [HUFFINGTON POST]

image: www.thecontrolleronline.com

Truth-Out

A few miles down the road from here, due west on 101, is the town of Brattleboro, Vermont. The architecture is a landscape of long brick, blocks and blocks of old mill buildings, a throwback to the days when the textile industry dominated this little corner of the country before the chance to find cheap labor elsewhere motivated a migration. The passing of that industry devastated many local economies for a very long time, and laid waste to many families, businesses and towns, another verse in the scripture of corporate greed.

In Brattleboro, Sen. Bernie Sanders is a household name. The same goes for Burlington, where Sanders served as mayor for four terms in the 1980s, a tenure that catapulted him into the House of Representatives in 1988. He was re-elected to that office by landslide margins until 2006, when Vermont’s Sen. Jim Jeffords announced his retirement. Sanders ran for the seat, and won it handily by about a 2-1 margin. When he ran for re-election in 2012, Senator Sanders won with 71 percent of the vote.

He went back to Burlington to announce his intention to campaign for the Democratic nomination for President at the end of this past May. Five thousand people attended. He pulled in three thousand people in Minnesota, and enjoyed a large crowd when he recently came through Keene, New Hampshire.

When he came through Iowa, he drew the largest crowds of any candidate, regardless of party, so far this year. According to a report on the visit in The New York Times, a Democratic county chairman named Kurt Meyer fired off a text to Hillary Clinton’s Iowa political director. “Objects in your mirror,” he wrote, “are closer than they appear.”

 [TRUTH-OUT]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Richard Cordray issued a decision in the first appeal of a Bureau administrative enforcement proceeding. The Director’s decision concludes that PHH Corp., a mortgage lender, illegally referred consumers to mortgage insurers in exchange for kickbacks. He also issued a final order that prohibits PHH from violating the law and requires it to pay $109 million to the Bureau.

Director Richard Cordray issued a decision upholding in part, and reversing in part, Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot’s November 2014 Recommended Decision, which held that PHH violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) when it accepted kickbacks for loans that closed on or after July 21, 2008. Those kickbacks took the form of mortgage reinsurance premiums that the mortgage insurers paid to a subsidiary of PHH.

Director Cordray’s decision held that PHH violated RESPA every time it accepted a kickback payment on or after July 21, 2008 – going beyond Judge Elliot’s ruling, which had limited PHH’s violations to kickbacks that were connected with loans that closed on or after July 21, 2008.

Director Cordray issued a final order that requires PHH to disgorge $109 million – all the reinsurance premiums it received on or after July 21, 2008. The order also bars PHH from violating the provision of RESPA that forbids kickbacks. In addition, it prohibits PHH from referring any consumer to a provider of a real estate settlement service if that provider has agreed to purchase any service from, or make any payment to, PHH, and if that purchase or payment is triggered by the referral.

In issuing his decision and final order, Director Cordray denied the appeal filed by respondents PHH Corp., PHH Mortgage Corp., PHH Home Loans LLC, Atrium Insurance Corp., and Atrium Reinsurance Corp. He also granted in part, and denied in part, an appeal filed by the Bureau’s enforcement counsel.

Any of the respondents may file a petition for review of the Director’s final order in a United States Court of Appeals within 30 days of the service of the final order.

The initial announcement of CFPB’s administrative proceeding against PHH is available here:
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-phh-corporation-for-mortgage-insurance-kickbacks/

A copy of today’s decision is available here: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_decision-by-director-cordray-redacted-226.pdf

A copy of the final order is available here: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_final_order_227.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

Civil Action No. 3:13cv543

CLAUDIO FARIASANTOS,
on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

v.

ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANT ROSENBERG &
ASSOCIATES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING DAMAGES (Docket
No. 66) and PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE
DECLARATION OF DIANE ROSENBERG AND EVIDENCE OF NET WORTH
PURSUANT TO RULE 56(c)(4) AND RULE 37(c)(1) (Docket No. 79).
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motions will be
denied and Plaintiff s motion will be granted in part and denied
in part.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from debt-collection letters sent by
Defendant Rosenberg & Associates, LLC (“R&A”) that include
disclosures in alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collections
Fariasantos v. Rosenberg & Associates, LLC

[…]

.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

MARY C. FANELLI,
Appellant,
v.
HSBC BANK USA,
Appellee.

No. 4D13-4111
[June 3, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Susan R. Lubitz, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 502008CA032941XXXXMB.
W. Trent Steele of Law Offices of W. Trent Steele, Hobe Sound, and Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Marjorie Gadarian Graham, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant.
Kimberly Hopkins and Ronald M. Gaché of Shapiro, Fishman & Gaché, LLP, Tampa, for appellee.
GROSS, J.

We reverse an order denying attorney’s fees in a mortgage foreclosure case and hold that an answer that handled attorney’s fees in the same manner as the applicable version of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.944 for a complaint was sufficient to support a motion for attorney’s fees after a dismissal.

In 2010, appellant, Mary Fanelli, filed an amended answer in a mortgage foreclosure case. As a common allegation to her affirmative defenses, the pleading said: “Defendant has retained the undersigned to represent her and has agreed to pay the Law Offices of W. Trent Steele a reasonable fee for their services.” The answer contained no separate prayer or demand for attorney’s fees.

The trial judge involuntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on the first day of trial. Fanelli moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 and section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes
(2014). The trial court denied the motion because the amended answer failed to adequately plead for attorney’s fees.
“[A] claim for attorney’s fees, whether based on statute or contract, must be pled.” Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835, 837 (Fla. 1991). “By pleading a claim to attorney’s fees, a party notifies the opposing party and prevents unfair surprise.” Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371, 377 (Fla. 2002).

The Florida Supreme Court has held that “Stockman is to be read to hold that the failure to set forth a claim for attorney fees in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim, if filed, constitutes a waiver.” Green v. Sun Harbor Homeowners’ Ass’n, 730 So. 2d 1261, 1263 (Fla. 1998). “Pleading specificity is not required; ‘the contractual or statutory basis for the attorney fee need not be specifically pled and failure to so plead does not result in a waiver of the claim.’” Dickson v. Heaton, 87 So. 3d 81, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Caufield, 87 So. 2d at 379-80).

If the purpose of the Stockman pleading requirement is to give notice to an opposing party, a sentence in a mortgage foreclosure pleading stating that a party has hired attorneys and is obligated to pay a reasonable fee for their services is sufficient to alert the other side that attorney’s fees might come into play.

This is the approach taken by the version of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.944 in effect prior to December 11, 2014, when the amendments to Form 1.944 went into effect. See In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 153 So. 3d 258, 262 (Fla. 2014). Setting forth a mortgage foreclosure complaint, pre-2014 Form 1.944 contains a statement about the plaintiff’s fee agreement with its attorneys, but no separate prayer for attorney’s fees. In mortgage foreclosures, attorney’s fees are typically sought by the prevailing plaintiff under the loan documents. Pre-2014 Form 1.944 uses only this language pertaining to attorney’s fees: “Plaintiff is obligated to pay plaintiff’s attorneys a reasonable fee for their services.” The form’s “wherefore” clause demands both a foreclosure judgment and a deficiency judgment, but says nothing about attorney’s fees. Rule 1.900(b) states that the civil forms “are sufficient for the matters that are covered by them.” Attorney’s fees are “covered” in paragraph 8 of pre-2014 Form 1.944, leading to the conclusion that the rule’s level of pleading specificity is sufficient to support a later claim for attorney’s fees. If such language suffices in a complaint, it performs the same function in an answer. As Fanelli argues, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

We note that on December 11, 2014, the Supreme Court adopted Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.115, entitled “Pleading Mortgage Foreclosures” and Forms 1.944(a) and (b) for mortgage foreclosure complaints. Both new forms require specification of the basis for an award of attorney’s fees as well as a demand for fees in the “Wherefore” clause. Thus, new Form 1.944(a) provides, in pertinent part:

8. Plaintiff is obligated to pay plaintiff’s attorneys a reasonable fee for their services. Plaintiff is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees under . . . . (allege statutory and/or contractual bases, as applicable). . . .
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment foreclosing the mortgage, for costs (and, when applicable, for attorneys’ fees), and, if the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to pay plaintiff’s claim, a deficiency judgment.
(Emphasis in original). In the future, to properly plead for attorney’s fees in mortgage foreclosure cases, litigants will have to comply with the new pleading form.

The trial court denied attorney’s fees based upon American Express Bank International v. Inverpan, S.A., 972 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). That case reversed an award of attorney’s fees based on a complaint similar to the one in this case, with a sentence about the plaintiffs being obligated to their lawyers for fees, but nothing in the complaint or “wherefore” clause demanding or requesting fees. Id. at 270. However, the third district distinguished American Express from a mortgage foreclosure case involving former Form 1.944, leaving open the possibility that in a case where the form applied, the court could have reached a different result.

We reverse the order denying the motion for attorney’s fees and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

The Street-

Goldman Sachs (GS) is one of up to nine banks reportedly expected to pay billions of dollars in settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice over the sale of mortgage-backed securities leading up to the financial crisis. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley (MS) could finalize their settlements within the next couple of weeks, as early as late June, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited people familiar with the matter. Other banks including Barclays (BCS), Credit Suisse (CS), Deutsche Bank (DB), HSBC (HSBC), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), UBS (UBS) and Wells Fargo (WFC) are expected to reach settlements in the coming months as well. The total amounts each bank will pay will reportedly be determined by its size and level of alleged misconduct on an individual basis. Overall, the banks could pay anywhere from several hundred million dollars to as much as $2 billion to $3 billion apiece. Once these settlements are finalized, the Justice Department may shift its focus to pursuing settlements with large U.S. regional banks tied to mortgage-backed securities they underwrote and sold, the Journal reported. The Justice Department has already reached settlements with J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM), Citigroup (C) and, most recently, Bank of America (BAC) for their roles in selling poor-quality mortgages before the crisis, totaling nearly $37 billion. Bank of America reached a settlement with the Department of Justice in August 2014 for $16.65 billion. That case marked the largest civil settlement with a single entity in American history, according to the Justice Department. The settlements have been reached in part because of the efforts of President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and its Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) Working Group.

[THE STREET]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. _______-Civ-___________

CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE
AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

vs.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE HOLDINGS
INC., JESSE K. BRAY and ROBERT D.
STILES,
Defendants.

CLASS ACTION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

EXCERPT:
In February 2012, 49 states and the District
of Columbia entered into a $25 billion
settlement with Ally Bank (formerly GMAC), Ba
nk of America, Citicorp, JP Morgan Chase and
Wells Fargo, five of the nation’s biggest mortgage
lenders, over a laundry list of improprieties from
“robo-signing” foreclosure documents to failing to
negotiate in good faith with homeowners over
inflated fees and other charges that pushed them in
to default (the “National Mortgage Settlement”).
The National Mortgage Settlement encouraged le
nders to negotiate lower rates with existing
borrowers and to lower principal am
ounts owed in an effort to keep
houses out of foreclosure.
Pursuant to new servicing rule
s under the National Mortgage Se
ttlement designed to slow down
foreclosures, the signing banks
were prohibited from employing “robo-
signing” in connection with
foreclosures or paying agents to speed up forecl
osures, took on new detailed paperwork obligations,
and had to take a number of
other steps before foreclosing,
including reviewing any loan
modification proposals the borrower made and givi
ng borrowers two weeks to
accept or reject any
offer the bank made. Separately, banks also faced
regulations under Basel III, a comprehensive set
of reform measures, limiting the amount of capital
they could risk on servicing rights, spurring them
to offload their servicing businesses.
37.
Following the financial crisis, Ocwen, then
the nation’s largest non-bank mortgage
servicing company, began buying up servicing right
s from banks who were no longer willing to
assume the substantial risks
of servicing their own MSRs.
38.
On December 19, 2013, the Consumer Financ
ial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”),
joined by 49 states and the District
of Columbia, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia alleging that Ocwen and othe
r firms had violated, among other laws, the Unfair
and Deceptive Acts and Practices laws of the plai
ntiff states and the Consumer Financial Protection
Act of 2010 by deceiving consumers about their loans and engaging in illegal foreclosures.
According to the complaint, investigators found
evidence that, among other things, Ocwen gave
borrowers false or misleading information, did
not honor trial modifications begun by previous
servicers, wrongly charged fees, and denied mortgage loan modifications to eligible borrowers.
During a conference call held with
reporters that day, CFPB direct
or Richard Cordray stated that
“‘[t]oo often, trouble began as soon as the loan
was transferred to Ocwen,’” adding that “‘Ocwen
made troubled borrowers even more vulnerable to foreclosure.’”
39.
Ocwen, the CFPB, and the 49 states and Distri
ct of Columbia entered into a Consent
Judgment also filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District
of Columbia on December 19, 2013,
under which Ocwen was forced to fund a $2.1 billion
mortgage settlement for mortgage servicing
abuses (including $2 billion in first-lien prin
ciple reduction and $125 million for cash payments to
borrowers whose loans had been fo
reclosed on). According to th
e CFPB, “‘Ocwen took advantage
of borrowers at every stage of the process.’”
The $2.1 billion fine far exceeded Ocwen’s $1.5 billion
of revenue during the first nine months of 2013,
and dwarfed the $357 million in cash Ocwen then
had on its books.
40.
Under the 2013 Consent Judgment, Ocwen was
required to improve its oversight of
its attorneys, bolster training for its employees
, refrain from making collection calls when a
borrower’s application for a modification was pending, and increase its staff. The 2013 Consent
Judgment contained “Examination Findings”
indicating that Ocwen suffered from:
a. Lack of controls related to document execution
, including evidence of robo-
signing, unauthorized execution,
assignment backdating, improper
certification and notarization, chain of
title irregularities, and other related
practices affecting the in
tegrity of documents relied upon in the foreclosure
process;
b. Deficiencies in loss mitigation and lo
an modification processes, including but
not limited to:
1. Failure to effectively communicate with borrowers
regarding loss
mitigation and other foreclosure avoidance alternatives;
2. Failure to account for documents
submitted in tandem with
application for loss mitigation assistance
;
3. Lack of reasonable expedience in approving or denying loss
mitigation applications
;
4. Providing false or misleading
reasons for denial of loan
modifications
; and
5. Failure to honor the terms loan
modifications for transferred
accounts and continued efforts
to collect payments under the
original note terms.

[…]

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 6, 2015.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D14-1015 & 3D13-691
Lower Tribunal No. 09-40588
________________
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc.,
Appellant,

vs.

Adriana Avila-Gonzalez, et al.,
Appellees.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer D. Bailey,
Judge.
Bryan Cave LLP, and William Bard Brockman and Damon J. Whitaker
(Atlanta), for appellant.
Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Annabel C. Majewski; Wald Castillo
& Wald, P.A., and Jennifer P. Wald, for appellees.
Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ, and LOGUE, JJ.
LOGUE, J.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Harborview
Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-5,
seeks review of the trial court’s order which dismissed its foreclosure action with
prejudice and canceled the underlying mortgage and note as a sanction. We
reverse.

The Bank filed a foreclosure action against Adriana Avila-Gonzalez
(“Borrower”) on May 26, 2009, following nonpayment and default on their note
and mortgage. The problems in this case arise from the Bank’s astounding
negligence in repeatedly insisting the note was lost when, in fact, its servicing
agent had possession all along.

The Bank pled a count for reestablishment of the allegedly lost note. It filed
two separate affidavits asserting that the note was lost, although it did not prevail
in any motion based on these affidavits. It answered discovery attesting the note
was lost. The Borrower was put to the expense of propounding extensive discovery
regarding the purported lost note, obtaining orders compelling discovery, and
attempting to develop what she assumed was the viable, if speculative, defense that
the Bank lacked standing. In December 2011, however, the Bank finally realized
that the note was not lost and that its servicing agent had custody of the note from
the inception of the lawsuit. The Bank served responses to discovery revealing this
development.

Frustrated at this reversal in the Bank’s position on such a simple fact central
to the lawsuit, the trial court issued an order to show cause why the action should
not be dismissed for fraud upon the court. The court focused on the Bank’s failure
to amend the complaint and withdraw its two affidavits attesting the note was lost.
In response, the Bank moved to amend and drop the lost note count. Meanwhile,
although apparently both parties assumed that the case was removed from a
pending trial calendar, the case went to trial. When neither party appeared for trial,
the trial court dismissed the action without prejudice.

The court nevertheless proceeded to conduct the hearing to show cause.
There is no transcript from the hearing. However, the trial court’s extensive and
detailed factual findings demonstrate that testimony from the Bank’s servicer
established that the note had been in the servicer’s vault before the complaint was
filed. The trial court, on October 3, 2012, set aside its prior order dismissing the
case without prejudice and instead entered an order which dismissed the case with
prejudice and cancelled the note and mortgage (“Dismissal Order”). The Bank then
moved to vacate the Dismissal Order and for rehearing of the motion to compel.
After further briefing and an additional hearing, the trial court denied the motions.
This appeal followed.

Given the facts of this case, the reasons for the trial court’s frustration with
the Bank are readily apparent and understandable. The Bank caused unnecessary
litigation over an issue, which, had it exercised a minimum amount of diligence,
would not only have streamlined the course of the litigation, but would have also,
ironically, strengthened its case. Instead, what followed was a flurry of inconsistent
discovery responses and allegations which wasted the time of the court and
opposing counsel.

Nevertheless, the Bank’s negligence first and foremost prejudiced the Bank
itself. The Bank’s actions in claiming the note was lost, when its servicing agent
had the note all along, may have given the Borrower false hope of the non-existent
defense of standing, but it did not prejudice the Borrower’s case so much as it
prejudiced the Bank’s own case. A party’s negligence that undermines the party’s
own case may be maddeningly foolish; it may test the limits of the best trial
judge’s patience; but it does not rise to a fraud upon the court. When such
negligence causes the opposing side to incur unnecessary attorney’s fees, the
proper and normal remedy for that injury is a compensating award of attorney’s
fees, not a lottery-like windfall to a party like the cancellation of the note and
mortgage. The Bank’s negligence, by the way, has allowed the Borrower to
continue to occupy the property without paying rent for approximately six years, so
far. We could find no authority justifying the cancellation of the note and mortgage
in these circumstances; the trial court’s order and the Borrower cite to none. The
cancellation of the note and mortgage was excessive.

As to the dismissal of the action, the Florida Supreme Court has laid out the
factors which must be addressed by a trial court should it determine that dismissal
with prejudice is an appropriate sanction. As this Court stated in Toll v. Korge,
The Supreme Court has articulated a six-factor analysis to determine
whether a dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate sanction due to
an attorney’s behavior:

1) Whether the attorney’s disobedience was willful,
deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of neglect
or inexperience;
2) Whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned;
3) Whether the client was personally involved in the act
of disobedience;
4) Whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party
through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some
other fashion;
5) Whether the attorney offered reasonable justification
for noncompliance; and
6) Whether the delay created significant problems of
judicial administration.
127 So. 3d 883, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (citing Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d
817, 818 (Fla.1993)). This Court has also recognized that such findings must be
included in the trial court’s order. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust v. Cagigas, 85 So. 3d
1181, 1182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“If, on remand, the trial court determines, after
considering the Kozel factors, that dismissal is appropriate the trial court shall
include in its written order findings of fact with respect to each factor.”).

The Borrower argues that Kozel and its progeny are inapplicable because the
trial court’s findings focus on the Bank’s conduct as opposed to that of counsel.
The law supports this argument. See Levine v. Del Am. Props., Inc., 642 So. 2d 32,
34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (affirming dismissal and finding Kozel inapplicable where
the litigant’s conduct, particularly the refusal to appear at depositions despite the
court’s order, was the basis for the sanction).1 However, the facts do not.
The offending actions, as identified by the lengthy Dismissal Order, are
those of the lawyer, not the Bank. For example, the trial court takes great issue
with the fact that “[f]rom February 24, 2012 to July 30, 2012, Plaintiff refused to
provide any documents or provide any explanation for the Note’s sudden
reappearance as requested in the Borrower’s discovery and mandated by this
Court’s order. Throughout this time, Plaintiff did not amend its Complaint to
dismiss the lost note count and did not rescind its Affidavits of Lost Note.”2 This
finding indicates that the lawyer, not the client, was at fault because amending the
complaint and withdrawing affidavits are actions of counsel. The same goes for the
trial court’s findings that the “Plaintiff” filed “frivolous objections” at various
points in the discovery process. Objections are generally filed by counsel, not the
litigant.

The trial court also states that “[i]n complete disregard of [the trial] court’s
May 14, 2012 and May 21, 2012 Orders, Plaintiff utterly failed to respond to
[Borrower’s] Request for Production Numbers 10 through 21. . . .” In the record,
there is a copy of an e-mail from the Bank’s counsel to the Borrower’s counsel
attaching the missing responses and acknowledging that counsel had inadvertently
omitted the responses to numbers 10-21 when she originally prepared the
responses to the request for production. The e-mail is dated July 31, 2012, the day
after the July 30, 2012 hearing on the motion to compel discovery. Again, in this
instance, the omission that was the focus of the court’s ire was that of counsel, not
the Bank. Additionally, the trial court makes several findings with respect to the
Bank’s tracking record which was never produced, but “would have been a crucial
document for the Defense.” Again, the trial court cites to how the “Plaintiff
asserted that the tracking record was subject to privilege,” and “Plaintiff was
unable to identify any privilege attached to the record,” and that “no privilege log
was ever filed with any of the Plaintiff [sic] response to discovery.” These findings
also indicate that the fault lay with the lawyer, because counsel makes objections
and files a privilege log.

Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s
Dismissal Order cancelling the note and the mortgage and remand with instructions
that the trial court reinstitute both. We also reverse the dismissal with prejudice
and remand for consideration of matters consistent with this opinion including, but
not limited to, an award of attorney’s fees to the Borrower.

Reversed and remanded.

BERNIE/WARREN TEAM HERE!!!

Naked Capitalism-

Elizabeth Warren just put SEC Chairman Mary Jo White firmly in her crosshairs. White is a deserving target. After being approved based on the promise that she’d reinvigorate a diminished agency via her chops as a former highly respected Federal prosecutor, White instead had specialized in empty promises, foot dragging and financial services cronyism. While these are sadly too common in senior regulatory circles most incumbents do far better than White in presenting a plausible veneer of serving the public interest. By contrast, White’s performance has been so remiss that a fellow Democratic party commissioner, Kara Stein, has gone into open opposition against her, and is regularly joined by the other Democrat commissioner, Luis Aguilar.

Warren’s letter (hat tip Adrien) comes a mere week after another missive calling out White’s dereliction at duty, when three former SEC commissioners blasted White for failing to to move forward on long-overdue rulemaking to require public companies to disclose their political spending.

Warren’s letter is much broader and more damning. It includes the failure to create the long-promised political donations rules and gives a detailed recap of all the times White has given a time estimate as to when they’d be completed, merely to have White promise yet another clearly meaningless due date. Oh, and White had the bad judgment to tell Warren that they’d be done by the fall of this year, only to have the OMB publish the very same day that the SEC had told them they’d be done in April 2016. Warren also blasts White for her pathetic record of getting settlements without admissions of wrongdoing, after promising to change the agency’s course, of failing to restrict the issuance of waivers for companies that have broken securities law (a major target of Stein and Aguilar) and White having to rescue herself almost routinely due to her history as a Wall Street defense attorney and her husband being a senior partner at Cravath. And mind you, Warren doesn’t even get to other widely-criticized White decisions, like her not taking action on high-frequency trading by punting the matter over to further study, or hiring a former Goldman employee to be her chief of staff.

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

RPM CEO Erwin Robert Hirt to Pay Additional $1 Million Civil Penalty

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed a complaint in federal district court against RPM Mortgage, Inc. and its CEO, Erwin Robert Hirt, for illegally paying bonuses and higher commissions to loan originators to incentivize them to steer consumers into costlier mortgages. The CFPB also filed a proposed order that, if entered by the court, would require RPM to pay $18 million in redress to consumers and a $1 million civil penalty, and would require Hirt to pay an additional $1 million civil penalty.

“RPM rewarded its loan officers for steering consumers into mortgages with higher interest rates,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today we are putting an end to RPM’s unlawful practices and holding Robert Hirt personally responsible for his involvement in them.”

RPM Mortgage, Inc. is a residential-mortgage lender that is headquartered in California and operates about sixty branches across 6 states. In April 2011, RPM instituted a compensation plan that gave loan officers financial incentives to steer consumers into higher-rate mortgage loans. RPM provided its loan officers with different forms of compensation that were derived in part from the interest rates of the loans they closed.

The company sought to mask this interest-rate-based compensation by filtering it through so-called “employee-expense accounts.” RPM deposited profits from an originator’s closed loans – profits that were directly tied to the loans’ interest rates – into an expense account set up for the originator. RPM used the expense accounts to pay bonuses and higher commissions to its loan originators. The company also allowed loan originators to tap their expense accounts to offset interest-rate reductions or give credits to certain customers to avoid losing the transactions to competitors. RPM paid or financed millions of dollars in unlawful bonuses, pricing concessions, and supplemental commissions.

Starting in 2011, the Loan Originator Compensation Rule has prohibited incentivizing loan originators to steer consumers to costlier mortgages. The CFPB has enforced the rule since July 21, 2011. The CFPB found that RPM’s compensation plan incentivized loan officers to saddle consumers with costlier loans to increase the loan officers’ compensation. The CFPB also found that Hirt, RPM’s CEO, was responsible for managing the design and implementation of this illegal compensation plan. Specifically, the CFPB found that RPM and Hirt violated the Loan Originator Compensation Rule and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) by:

• Funding millions of dollars in illegal bonuses: From April 2011 through January 2012, RPM paid 511 bonuses to its loan originators from their individual employee-expense accounts. The expense-account funds were based in part on the interest rates of the loans the originators closed.

• Paying tens of millions of dollars in higher commissions based on high-interest loans: At the end of 2011, RPM stopped paying bonuses from the employee-expense accounts. Instead, it allowed loan originators to use the employee-expense accounts to supplement their commissions on future transactions. Loan officers were able to reset their commission rates on future loans by using employee-expense account funds to cover the increased costs. In this way, profits from earlier high-interest loans were converted into tens of millions of dollars in commission income.

• Allowing loan officers to use expense accounts to pay for pricing incentives to close new mortgages: From April 2011 through December 2013, RPM allowed loan originators to use their expense accounts to finance thousands of pricing concessions that enabled the loan officers to close and earn commissions on transactions they otherwise would have lost. This “point bank” arrangement allowed loan originators to “bank” profits extracted from certain consumers that enabled them to close on and receive additional compensation from loans to future consumers.

Enforcement Action

The CFPB’s proposed consent order, if entered by the court, would require RPM and Hirt to comply with the Loan Originator Compensation Rule and the CFPA and take the following actions:

• Pay $18 million in redress: RPM will pay $18 million in redress to consumers affected by the company’s unlawful compensation practices. The Bureau will notify eligible consumers and send refund checks in the mail.

• Pay $2 million in fines: RPM and Hirt will each pay $1 million to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

A copy of the complaint filed today is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_complaint-for-permanent-injunction-and-other-relief-rpm-mortgage-inc-and-erwin-robert-hirt-individually.pdf

A copy of the proposed order filed today is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_stipulated-final-judgment-and-order-as-to-rpm-mortgage-inc-and-erwin-robert-hirt-individually.pdf

We always knew they were corrupt from day 1.

NYT-

In early 2010, with the financial crisis still reverberating through the economy, a top Justice Department official arranged a meeting with executives from Goldman Sachs and some of his prosecutors, a document shows.

But the hourlong meeting at the Justice Department in Washington had nothing to do with the financial crisis or with Goldman’s role in marketing securities backed by mortgage loans made to borrowers with shaky credit histories, said a person briefed on the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Instead, the gathering, organized by Lanny A. Breuer, then the assistant attorney general for the criminal division, focused exclusively on the subject of terrorism financing.

 [NEW YORK TIMES]

Daily Business Review-

Opposing counsel are furious with foreclosure defense attorney Thomas Ice and want him thrown off a case based on a May 20 article printed by the Daily Business Review.

Clarfield Okon Salomone & Pincus attorneys represent mortgage lender Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. in its foreclosure suit against Port St. Lucie homeowners Thomas and Jeanette Rolle.

The Rolles were sued in April 2012 after defaulting on a $90,000 mortgage. They’ve since fallen behind on 95 payments, according to court documents.

Read more: http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/id=1202728142358/Firm-Wants-Thomas-Ice-Off-Foreclosure-Case-After-Daily-Business-Review-Article#ixzz3c2TpsScN

H/T Gary Dubin & Leagle

IN RE MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS) LITIGATION Case No. MD 09-02119-PHX-JAT, No. CV 10-01547-PHX-JAT.

IN RE MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS) LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Stejic v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, et al. CV 10-01547-PHX-JAT.
United States District Court, D. Arizona.
May 28, 2015.

Doug Moreau, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Eric Mesi, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
Fred Mesi, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
Richard F Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC & Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
Aunetta M Roach, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC & Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
Sabrina M Caffee, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC, Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Jonathon E Sieben, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC4>, Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Tammy Vo, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC & Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
Stuart M Ellifritz, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC & Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
David R McConathy, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC & Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
William C Barlow, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC & Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
Christina Sage, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Clyde Kelley, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Ronald E Freeto, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC, Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Robert L Fitzgerald, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Merrily Whalen, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey D Conway, Rosenfeld Roberson & Rinato.
Michael Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey D Conway, Rosenfeld Roberson & Rinato.
Michael Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey D Conway, Rosenfeld Roberson & Rinato.
Andrea G Saniel, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey D Conway, Rosenfeld Roberson & Rinato.
Connie Kwok, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey D Conway, Rosenfeld Roberson & Rinato.
Amira Berilo, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob L Hafter, Law Offices of Jacob Hafter & Associates.
Edward T Fitzwater, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob L Hafter, Law Offices of Jacob Hafter & Associates.
Michael H Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob L Hafter, Law Offices of Jacob Hafter & Associates.
Alan Kartman, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob L Hafter, Law Offices of Jacob Hafter & Associates.
Russell D Bricker, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob L Hafter, Law Offices of Jacob Hafter & Associates.
Philip Golding, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob L Hafter, Law Offices of Jacob Hafter & Associates.
Mark Mausert, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Veronika Lucie Zdenkova, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Kylee Riehm, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Rowan Riehm, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Cynthia F Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC & Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
Bryan Mikulaco, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Melva D Tyler, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Steven M Tyler, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Rafael Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Jason A Gothan, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Rosalynn R Gothan, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Tonya M Foster, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Christopher J Sieben, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Robert J Funk, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Duane J Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Robert C Kelley, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Sally Kelley, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Kurt B Ludlow, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey D Conway, Rosenfeld Roberson & Rinato.
Charlie G Habon, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Martha Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Jonathan Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Jose Portillo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
David Stinnett, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Tina Stinnett, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Robert C Sedlmayr, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Jose Camacho-Villa, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Michelle Camacho-Villa, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Merly CS Riger, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne, Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne & William Albert Nebeker, Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck LLP.
David J Freeman, Plaintiff, represented by Glenn Walters, Sr., Glenn Walters Attorney at Law PA.
Henry B Youmans, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Glenn Walters, Sr., Glenn Walters Attorney at Law PA.
Eric A Gothan, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Terreia L Gothan, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Herous Yeghiyaian, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Nelson Sandefur, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
Nelson Sandefur, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Denise Spracklin, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
J E Scott Spracklin, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne & Treva J Hearne, Hager & Hearne.
Steven Meyer, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Michael D Van Blaircom, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R Hager, Hager & Hearne.
Milan Stejic, Plaintiff, represented by Beth Findsen, Law Office of Beth K Findsen PLLC.
Laurie S Bilyea, Plaintiff, represented by William Albert Nebeker, Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck LLP & Donald O Loeb, Donald O Loeb PLC.
Thomas W Bilyea, Plaintiff, represented by William Albert Nebeker, Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck LLP & Donald O Loeb, Donald O Loeb PLC.
Raymond G Harnist, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Maria Vega, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Abdolhamid Ahmadi, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Dustin Rollins, Plaintiff, represented by John R Ates, Ates Law Firm PC & David C Ates, David Ates PC.
Juanita Faye Pualani Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick J Arensmeyer, Dubin Law Offices & Gary Victor Dubin, Dubin Law Offices.
Lady Jennifer Barone, Plaintiff, represented by Valerie Robinson Edwards, Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck LLP & William Albert Nebeker, Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck LLP.
Alan E Grundel, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
Gwendell L Philpot, Plaintiff, represented by Joe Ramon Whatley, Jr, Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC & Nicholas B Roth, Eyster Key Tubb Roth Middleton & Adams LLP.
Annette Green Philpot, Plaintiff, represented by Joe Ramon Whatley, Jr, Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC & Nicholas B Roth, Eyster Key Tubb Roth Middleton & Adams LLP.
Phil Rutherford, Plaintiff, represented by Tory M Pankopf.
Pamela Penny-Rutherford, Plaintiff, represented by Tory M Pankopf.
GE Money Bank, Defendant, represented by Andrew R Louis, Buckley Sandler LLP, Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Keith Beauchamp, Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, Matthew P Previn, Buckley Sandler LLP, Richard J Sahatjian, Buckley Sandler LLP & Roopali H Desai, Coppersmith Brockelman PLC.
WMC Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Maureen Beyers, Osborn Maledon PA & William J Maledon, Osborn Maledon PA.
Wells Fargo Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Barbara J Dawson, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, John Michael DeStefano, III, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Patrick Gerard Byrne, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Robert J Gibson, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP & U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP.
America’s Servicing Company, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Gary E Schnitzer, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP & U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP.
MERSCORP Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Robert W Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Shayna Fernandez Watts, Bryan Cave LLP, Colt B Dodrill, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Elliot S Blut, Ecoff Blut & Salomons, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, J Matthew Goodin, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, James R Condo, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Jennifer Ann Reiter, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP, Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Natalia Burnett, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, P Russell Perdew, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP, Patrick Gerard Byrne, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Robert M Brochin, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Robert W Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Shayna Fernandez Watts, Bryan Cave LLP, Brian M Forbes, K&L Gates LLP, Colt B Dodrill, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Douglas Anthony Toleno, Aldridge Pite LLP, Elliot S Blut, Ecoff Blut & Salomons, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Gary E Schnitzer, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Gregg A Hubley, Aldridge Pite LLP, Gregory N Blase, K&L Gates LLP, Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, J Matthew Goodin, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, James R Condo, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Jennifer Ann Reiter, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Jessica Renee Kenney, McCarthy Holthus Levine, Joseph T Prete, Smith Larsen & Wixom, Kent F Larsen, Smith Larsen & Wixom, Lane C Hornfeck, Sarn OToole Marcus & Fisher, Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP, Leonard J McDonald, Jr., Tiffany & Bosco PA, Matthew Allen Silverman, McCarthy Holthus Levine, Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Natalia Burnett, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, P Russell Perdew, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP, Patrick Gerard Byrne, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Paul M Levine, McCarthy Holthus Levine, Peter E Dunkley, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Robert Bruce Allensworth, K&L Gates LLP, Robert M Brochin, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Robert Wayne Norman, Jr., Houser & Allison APC, AZ, Stefan Mark Palys, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, AZ, Stephanie EW Thompson, Starn OToole Marcus & Fisher & William Morris Fischbach, III, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
Countrywide Home Loans Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, Gregory Bryan Iannelli, Bryan Cave LLP, AZ, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Robert W Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Stefan Mark Palys, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, AZ, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP, U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Gregory W Falls, Sherman & Howard LLC, AZ, Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Howard S Lindenberg, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Jill L Nicholson, Foley & Lardner LLP, Mark S Landman, Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford PC, Patrick Gerard Byrne, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Robert J Gibson, Snell & Wilmer LLP.
Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Howard S Lindenberg, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, James R Condo, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Jill L Nicholson, Foley & Lardner LLP, Joanne Lee, Foley & Lardner LLP, Jonathan W Garlough, Foley & Lardner LLP, Mark S Landman, Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford PC, Patrick Gerard Byrne, Snell & Wilmer LLP & William J McKenna, Foley & Lardner LLP.
GMAC Mortgage Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Felicia Y Yu, Reed Smith LLP, Henry F Reichner, Reed Smith LLP, Ira Steven Lefton, Reed Smith LLP & Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP.
National City Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Abran E Vigil, Ballard Spahr LLP, Brian Schulman, Ballard Spahr LLP, AZ & David H Pittinsky, Ballard Spahr LLP.
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Brian M Forbes, K&L Gates LLP, Daniel D Maynard, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Danielle J Szukala, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC, David R Hall, Parsons Behle & Latimer LLC, Douglas Cameron Erickson, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Gregory N Blase, K&L Gates LLP, Jennifer Ann Reiter, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Joseph T Prete, Smith Larsen & Wixom, Kent F Larsen, Smith Larsen & Wixom, LeAnn Pedersen Pope, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC & Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered.
CitiMortgage Incorporated, Defendant, represented by James A Ryan, Quarles & Brady LLP, AZ, Lauren Elliott Stine, Quarles & Brady LLP, AZ, Lucia Nale, Mayer Brown LLP & Thomas V Panoff, Mayer Brown LLP.
HSBC Mortgage Corporation USA, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Joseph E Anthony, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Patrick Gerard Byrne, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Robert J Gibson, Snell & Wilmer LLP.
AIG United Guaranty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick Michael Klein, II, Fennemore Craig & Todd Stephen Kartchner, Fennemore Craig PC, AZ.
Bank of America NA, Defendant, represented by Robert W Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Ariel E Stern, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, Gregory Bryan Iannelli, Bryan Cave LLP, AZ, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Jacob D Bundick, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP & U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP.
America’s Wholesale Lender, Defendant, represented by Gregory Bryan Iannelli, Bryan Cave LLP, AZ, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP & U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP.
Executive Trustee Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Colt B Dodrill, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Gregg A Hubley, Aldridge Pite LLP, Gregory Bryan Iannelli, Bryan Cave LLP, AZ, Henry F Reichner, Reed Smith LLP, Ira Steven Lefton, Reed Smith LLP & Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP.
National City Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian Schulman, Ballard Spahr LLP, AZ & David H Pittinsky, Ballard Spahr LLP.
PNC Financial Services Incorporated, Defendant, represented by David H Pittinsky, Ballard Spahr LLP.
MortgageIT Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Karen A Braje, Kristine Huajean Chen, Lorenzo Gasparetti, Reed Smith LLP, Brian Jay Schulman, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Laura Elizabeth Sixkiller, Greenberg Traurig LLP.
Deutsche Bank, Defendant, represented by Karen A Braje, Kristine Huajean Chen & Lorenzo Gasparetti, Reed Smith LLP.
Aurora Loan Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason Levi Sanders, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, Ariel E Stern, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Colt B Dodrill, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, J Matthew Goodin, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP, Jessica Renee Kenney, McCarthy Holthus Levine, Jordan Michael Smith, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Justin Donald Balser, Akerman LLP, Kristin A Schuler-Hintz, McCarthy & Holthus, Matthew Allen Silverman, McCarthy Holthus Levine, P Russell Perdew, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP, Paul M Levine, McCarthy Holthus Levine, Robert Wayne Norman, Jr., Houser & Allison APC, AZ & Thomas J Cunningham, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP.
Litton Loan Servicing LP, Defendant, represented by Brian M Forbes, K&L Gates LLP, Gary E Schnitzer, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Gregory N Blase, K&L Gates LLP, Gregory Michael Monaco, Mack Watson & Stratman PLC, Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Robert Bruce Allensworth, K&L Gates LLP & Stephen M Dichter, Christian Dichter & Sluga PC.
ReconTrust Company, Defendant, represented by Ariel E Stern, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Stefan Mark Palys, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, AZ, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP, U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
CR Title Services Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Lauren Elliott Stine, Quarles & Brady LLP, AZ, Lucia Nale, Mayer Brown LLP & Thomas V Panoff, Mayer Brown LLP.
Housekey Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ & Patrick Gerard Byrne, Snell & Wilmer LLP.
American Home Mortgage Servicing Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Andrew R Louis, Buckley Sandler LLP, Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Matthew P Previn, Buckley Sandler LLP & Patrick Gerard Byrne, Snell & Wilmer LLP.
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Neil A Ackerman, Neil Ackerman Esq LLC & Zachary T Ball, Fidelity National Law Group.
National Default Servicing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Gregory L Wilde, Tiffany & Bosco PA & Jonathan D Fink, Wright Finlay & Zak LLP.
Quality Loan Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kristin A Schuler-Hintz, McCarthy & Holthus.
Bank of New York Mellon, Defendant, represented by Gregory Bryan Iannelli, Bryan Cave LLP, AZ, Robert W Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP, Brian M Forbes, K&L Gates LLP, Danielle J Szukala, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC, David R Hall, Parsons Behle & Latimer LLC, Gregory N Blase, K&L Gates LLP, Jennifer Ann Reiter, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP & LeAnn Pedersen Pope, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC.
MidFirst Bank, Defendant, represented by Kristin A Schuler-Hintz, McCarthy & Holthus.
Midland Mortgage Company, Defendant, represented by Abran E Vigil, Ballard Spahr LLP, Kristin A Schuler-Hintz, McCarthy & Holthus & Shane Jasmine Young, Ballard Spahr LLP.
National City Bank, Defendant, represented by David H Pittinsky, Ballard Spahr LLP.
Bank of New York Mellon, Defendant, represented by Gregory Bryan Iannelli, Bryan Cave LLP, AZ, Robert W Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Danielle J Szukala, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, LeAnn Pedersen Pope, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP & U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP.
Bank of New York, Defendant, represented by Gary E Schnitzer, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP & U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP.
First Franklin Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Peter E Dunkley, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP & U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP.
First Horizon Home Loan Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ariel E Stern, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Jacob D Bundick, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP & U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP.
LaSalle Bank NA, Defendant, represented by J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis & Roca LLP, Emily Snow Cates, Lewis & Roca LLP Office, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP & U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP.
Merrill Lynch & Company Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP & U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP.
Bank of America NA, Defendant, represented by Robert W Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Stefan Mark Palys, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, AZ, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP, U Gwyn Williams, Goodwin Procter LLP & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
EMC Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Danielle J Szukala, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC, David R Hall, Parsons Behle & Latimer LLC, Jay Earl Smith, Smith Larsen & Wixom, Jennifer Ann Reiter, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Joseph T Prete, Smith Larsen & Wixom & LeAnn Pedersen Pope, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC.
California Reconveyance Company, Defendant, represented by Danielle J Szukala, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC, David R Hall, Parsons Behle & Latimer LLC, Jennifer Ann Reiter, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Joseph T Prete, Smith Larsen & Wixom, Kent F Larsen, Smith Larsen & Wixom & LeAnn Pedersen Pope, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC.
Signature Group Holdings Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Karl L Nielson, Jones Vargas.
GRP Financial Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP.
GRP Loan LLC, Defendant, represented by Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP.
GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-16, Defendant, represented by Ariel E Stern, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Jacob D Bundick, Akerman Senterfitt LLP & Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP.
MERSCORP Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Elliot S Blut, Ecoff Blut & Salomons, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Natalia Burnett, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Patrick Gerard Byrne, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Robert M Brochin, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.
Danita F Fallen, Defendant, represented by Thomas P Beko, Erickson Thorpe & Swainston Limited.
Geneva Martrakus, Defendant, represented by Thomas P Beko, Erickson Thorpe & Swainston Limited.
Western Exchange Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Thomas P Beko, Erickson Thorpe & Swainston Limited.
Western Title Company Incorporated, Defendant, represented by James M Walsh, Walsh Baker & Rosevear PC & Thomas P Beko, Erickson Thorpe & Swainston Limited.
Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D Fink, Wright Finlay & Zak LLP.
First Centennial Title, Defendant, represented by James M Walsh, Walsh Baker & Rosevear PC.
HSBC Bank USA NA, Defendant, represented by Brian M Forbes, K&L Gates LLP, Gary E Schnitzer, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered & Rachel Erin Donn, Meier & Fine LLC.
BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Defendant, represented by Ariel E Stern, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP & Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP.
Greenhead Investments Incorporated, Defendant, represented by John Patrick Flynn, Dioguardi Flynn LLP, Peter Jon Moolenaar, Dioguardi Flynn LLP & Todd Alan Williams, Dioguardi Flynn LLP.
Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Incorporated.
Regional Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joe John Andrew Solseng, Robins Tait PS.
Sierra Pacific Mortgage Services Incorporated, Defendant, represented by John Patrick Flynn, Dioguardi Flynn LLP & Todd Alan Williams, Dioguardi Flynn LLP.
Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Ashley H Chalmers, OMelveny & Myers LLP, Brian P Brooks, OMelveny & Myers LLP Eye St., Elizabeth Lemond McKeen, OMelveny & Myers LLP & Randall W Edwards, OMelveny & Myers LLP.
Western Progressive Trustee LLC, Defendant, represented by Ashley H Chalmers, OMelveny & Myers LLP, Elizabeth Lemond McKeen, OMelveny & Myers LLP & Randall W Edwards, OMelveny & Myers LLP.
Aztec Foreclosure Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D Fink, Wright Finlay & Zak LLP.
Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, Defendant, represented by Colt B Dodrill, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, J Matthew Goodin, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP, Jessica Renee Kenney, McCarthy Holthus Levine, Matthew Allen Silverman, McCarthy Holthus Levine, P Russell Perdew, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP & Paul M Levine, McCarthy Holthus Levine.
Kumud Patel, Defendant, represented by Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
Countrywide Bank FSB, Defendant, represented by Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
Lisa Klimenko, Defendant, represented by Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP, Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
National City Bank, Defendant, represented by Brian Schulman, Ballard Spahr LLP, AZ & David H Pittinsky, Ballard Spahr LLP.
National City Corporation, Defendant, represented by David H Pittinsky, Ballard Spahr LLP.
National City Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Abran E Vigil, Ballard Spahr LLP, Brian Schulman, Ballard Spahr LLP, AZ & David H Pittinsky, Ballard Spahr LLP.
PNC Financial Services Group Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Brian Schulman, Ballard Spahr LLP, AZ & David H Pittinsky, Ballard Spahr LLP.
CEREF REO II LLC, Defendant, represented by L Joe Coppedge, Coppedge Emmel & Klegerman.
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Specialized Loan Servicing LLC.
Stewart Title of Northern Nevada, Defendant, represented by Christian L Moore, Lemons Grundy & Eisenberg & Douglas R Brown, Lemons Grundy & Eisenberg.
HSBC Bank USA, Defendant, represented by Marilyn Fine, Meier & Fine LLC, Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered & Rachel Erin Donn, Meier & Fine LLC.
IndyMac Federal Bank FSB, Defendant, represented by Marilyn Fine, Meier & Fine LLC.
OneWest Bank, Defendant, represented by Kristin A Schuler-Hintz, McCarthy & Holthus & Marilyn Fine, Meier & Fine LLC.
JPMorgan Chase, Defendant, represented by Danielle J Szukala, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC, Gary E Schnitzer, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, LeAnn Pedersen Pope, Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC & Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered.
Chase Home Finance LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert W Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Shayna Fernandez Watts, Bryan Cave LLP, Jay Earl Smith, Smith Larsen & Wixom, Jennifer Ann Reiter, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Joseph T Prete, Smith Larsen & Wixom & Kent F Larsen, Smith Larsen & Wixom.
TD Service Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory L Wilde, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
Cooper Castle Law Firm LLP, Defendant, represented by Aaron Michael Waite, Weinstein Pinson & Riley PS.
U.S. Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Barbara J Dawson, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP, Brian M Forbes, K&L Gates LLP, Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Gary E Schnitzer, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Gregory N Blase, K&L Gates LLP, Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP, Leonard J McDonald, Jr., Tiffany & Bosco PA, Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered & William Morris Fischbach, III, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
Bank of America, Defendant, represented by Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Joseph T Prete, Smith Larsen & Wixom, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP & Stefan Mark Palys, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, AZ.
Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregg A Hubley, Aldridge Pite LLP, Jessica Renee Kenney, McCarthy Holthus Levine, Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP, Matthew Allen Silverman, McCarthy Holthus Levine & Paul M Levine, McCarthy Holthus Levine.
Bank of New York, Defendant, represented by Brian M Forbes, K&L Gates LLP, Gary E Schnitzer, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Gregory N Blase, K&L Gates LLP, Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered & Robert Bruce Allensworth, K&L Gates LLP.
Lime Financial Services Limited, Defendant, represented by Aaron Michael Waite, Weinstein Pinson & Riley PS.
IndyMac Bank FSB, Defendant, represented by Kristin A Schuler-Hintz, McCarthy & Holthus & Marilyn Fine, Meier & Fine LLC.
Equity One Incorporated, Defendant, represented by David R Hall, Parsons Behle & Latimer LLC.
First Centennial Title Company of Nevada, Defendant, represented by James M Walsh, Walsh Baker & Rosevear PC.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Defendant, represented by Jami Wintz McKeon, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jeremy S Gladstone, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Peter E Dunkley, Wolfe & Wyman LLP & Ryan W Herrick, Jones Vargas.
First Franklin, Defendant, represented by Peter E Dunkley, Wolfe & Wyman LLP.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Robert W Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Shayna Fernandez Watts, Bryan Cave LLP, Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Elliot S Blut, Ecoff Blut & Salomons, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, Gary E Schnitzer, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Joseph T Prete, Smith Larsen & Wixom, Lane C Hornfeck, Sarn OToole Marcus & Fisher, Melanie D Morgan, Kravitz Schnitzer Sloane & Johnson Chartered, Natalia Burnett, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Peter E Dunkley, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Robert M Brochin, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Stephanie EW Thompson, Starn OToole Marcus & Fisher.
National Default Servicing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D Fink, Wright Finlay & Zak LLP.
Chicago Title, Defendant, represented by Douglas D Gerrard, Gerrard Cox Larsen & Sheldon A Herbert, Gerrard Cox Larsen.
BAC Home Loans, Defendant, represented by Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP & Stefan Mark Palys, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, AZ.
ReconTrust Company NA, Defendant, represented by Gregory Bryan Iannelli, Bryan Cave LLP, AZ, Robert W Shely, Bryan Cave LLP, Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP, Ariel E Stern, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Jacob D Bundick, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Stefan Mark Palys, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, AZ & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
Fidelity National Title, Defendant, represented by Douglas D Gerrard, Gerrard Cox Larsen, Marybeth Sundstrom, Gerrard Cox Larsen, Sheldon A Herbert, Gerrard Cox Larsen & Zachary T Ball, Fidelity National Law Group.
HSBC Mortgage Services Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ & Gregory James Marshall, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ.
Credit Suisse First Boston Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Erica Julie Stutman, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ.
BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Defendant, represented by Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
MTC Financial Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Richard Joseph Reynolds, Turner Reynolds Greco & OHara & William Fred Hyder, William F Hyder PC.
AmTrust Bank, Defendant, represented by J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP.
Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP.
Central Mortgage Company, Defendant, represented by David Winthrop Cowles, Tiffany & Bosco PA, Kevin Patrick Nelson, Tiffany & Bosco PA, Kevin Hahn, Malcolm & Cisneros, Leonard J McDonald, Jr., Tiffany & Bosco PA & William Morris Fischbach, III, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
First Franklin Loan Services Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Thomas M Hefferon, Goodwin Procter LLP.
GMAC Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew J Christian, Kolesar & Leatham, William D Schuller, Kolesar & Leatham, Douglas Anthony Toleno, Aldridge Pite LLP, Henry F Reichner, Reed Smith LLP, Ira Steven Lefton, Reed Smith LLP, Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP & Michael R Pennington, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.
Landmark Onestop Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Beth McNamara Wilson, LandAmerica Financial Group.
Homecomings Financial Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Henry F Reichner, Reed Smith LLP, Ira S Lefton, Reed Smith LLP, Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP & Michael R Pennington, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.
Saxon Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Colt B Dodrill, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, J Matthew Goodin, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP, P Russell Perdew, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP & Thomas J Cunningham, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP.
SunTrust Mortgage Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Abran E Vigil, Ballard Spahr LLP, Ariel E Stern, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Jacob D Bundick, Akerman Senterfitt LLP & Shane Jasmine Young, Ballard Spahr LLP.
MortgageIT Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Brian Jay Schulman, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Karen A Braje & Laura Elizabeth Sixkiller, Greenberg Traurig LLP.
Countrywide Mortgage Ventures LLC, Defendant, represented by Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Emily Snow Cates, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP Office, J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP & Ann-Martha Andrews, Lewis & Roca LLP.
John Roussel, Defendant, represented by Ariel E Stern, Akerman Senterfitt LLP & Jacob D Bundick, Akerman Senterfitt LLP.
Stewart Title, Defendant, represented by Christian L Moore, Lemons Grundy & Eisenberg & Douglas R Brown, Lemons Grundy & Eisenberg.
Ticor Title of Nevada Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Douglas D Gerrard, Gerrard Cox Larsen, Marybeth Sundstrom, Gerrard Cox Larsen, Sheldon A Herbert, Gerrard Cox Larsen & Zachary T Ball, Fidelity National Law Group.
GMAC Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Colt B Dodrill, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Gregg A Hubley, Aldridge Pite LLP & Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP.
Susan Longero, Defendant, represented by Douglas D Gerrard, Gerrard Cox Larsen.
TD Service Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory L Wilde, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
TD Service Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory L Wilde, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Barbara J Dawson, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ, John Michael DeStefano, III, Snell & Wilmer LLP, AZ & Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP.
Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company Incorporated, Defendant, represented by John Patrick Flynn, Dioguardi Flynn LLP, Peter Jon Moolenaar, Dioguardi Flynn LLP & Todd Alan Williams, Dioguardi Flynn LLP.
Greentree, Defendant, represented by J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP.
Wells Fargo Home Equity, Defendant, represented by Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP.
Shelter Mortgage Company LLC, Defendant, represented by G Lynn Shumway, Law Office of G Lynn Shumway & Roland P Reynolds, Palmer Lombardi & Donohue LLP.
I.B. Property Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory L Wilde, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
Fidelity National Default, Defendant, represented by Neil A Ackerman, Neil Ackerman Esq LLC.
IndyMac Mortgage Services, Defendant, represented by Elliot S Blut, Ecoff Blut & Salomons.
Chicago Title Agency of Nevada Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Zachary T Ball, Fidelity National Law Group.
Hometown Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by Cynthia Alexander, Snell & Wilmer LLP.
HSBC Bank USA, Defendant, represented by Marilyn Fine, Meier & Fine LLC & Rachel Erin Donn, Meier & Fine LLC.
OneWest Bank FSB, Defendant, represented by Brett J Natarelli, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Marilyn Fine, Meier & Fine LLC & Robin P Wright, Wright Finlay & Zak LLP.
Countrywide Bank NA, Defendant, represented by J Christopher Jorgensen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP & Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP.
World Savings Bank FSB, Defendant, represented by Cassie R Stratford, Snell & Wilmer LLP.
E*Trade Financial, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D Dykstra, Severson & Werson & Keegan G Low, Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Robb.
Chase Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Jay Earl Smith, Smith Larsen & Wixom & Joseph T Prete, Smith Larsen & Wixom.
UTLS Default Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Laurel Inman Handley, Aldridge Pite LLP & Douglas Anthony Toleno, Aldridge Pite LLP.
Bank of New York Trust Company NA, Defendant, represented by Douglas Anthony Toleno, Aldridge Pite LLP.
Residential Funding Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas Anthony Toleno, Aldridge Pite LLP & Michael R Pennington, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.
MAX Default Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Leonard J McDonald, Jr., Tiffany & Bosco PA & William Morris Fischbach, III, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
Provident Funding Associates LP, Defendant, represented by Leonard J McDonald, Jr., Tiffany & Bosco PA & William Morris Fischbach, III, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
Security Title Agency Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Michael R Scheurich, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Robert C Brown, Dickinson Wright PLLC.
DLSA Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR1, Defendant, represented by Leonard J McDonald, Jr., Tiffany & Bosco PA & William Morris Fischbach, III, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
DSL Service Company, Defendant, represented by Leonard J McDonald, Jr., Tiffany & Bosco PA & William Morris Fischbach, III, Tiffany & Bosco PA.
Colonial Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Alex J Flangas, Holland & Hart LLP & Tamara Reid, Holland & Hart LLP.
First Horizon Home Loans, Defendant, represented by Joseph F Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP.
Sharon L Grundel, Defendant, represented by Rick Lawton, Law Office of Rick Lawton Esq PC.
MTC Financial Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Richard Joseph Reynolds, Turner Reynolds Greco & OHara & William Fred Hyder, William F Hyder PC.
GMAC Residential Funding Corporation, Defendant, represented by Henry F Reichner, Reed Smith LLP, Ira Steven Lefton, Reed Smith LLP & Michael R Pennington, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.
Land Home Financial Services, Defendant, represented by Bradley R Bowles, Bowles & Verna LLP & Michael P Connolly, Bowles & Verna LLP.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor Defendant, represented by David B Bergman, Arnold & Porter LLP, David D Fauvre, Arnold & Porter LLP, Howard N Cayne, Arnold & Porter LLP, Michael W Large, Laxalt & Nomura Limited, Stephen E Hart, Office of Thrift Supervision & Steven E Guinn, Laxalt & Nomura Limited.

ORDER

JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC’s (“Aurora”) motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 1833).

Background

This Court previously granted a motion to dismiss this case. Plaintiffs appealed that decision and the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal (Doc. 1797). Following remand, Defendants indicated that they intended to again move to dismiss. This Court ordered that if any Defendant again moved to dismiss, such Defendant must address the Rule of Mandate and how this Court could entertain another round of motions to dismiss having already been reversed for dismissing the case (Doc. 1803).

Defendant Aurora filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings and completely failed to comply with this Court’s Order. While the motion filed was called a “motion for judgment on the pleadings,” Aurora advocates throughout the motion that it is decided on the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard (see, e.g., Doc. 1833 at 3). Thus, the Court does not see a distinction between a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) and a motion for judgment on the pleadings for purposes of Defendants’ obligation to comply with the Order at Doc. 1803.

Further, the Court advised Defendant Aurora at the Rule 16 conference that the Court was “surprised” it did not even cite the Court of Appeals decision in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Aurora’s response was to indicate they would address it only if Plaintiffs addressed it in their response. However, a lawyer should address controlling case law even if the opposing side fails to cite it.1 Moreover, the Court had twice told Defendants that the Court expected the Court of Appeals decision to be addressed. Nonetheless, in their Reply, Aurora still fails to mention it.

Rule of Mandate

…the Ischay court instructed that the “so-called rule of mandate `presents a specific and more binding variant of the law of the case doctrine.’ The rule of mandate requires that, on remand, the lower court’s actions must be consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the higher court’s decision.”Ischay, 383 F.Supp.2d at 1214 (citations omitted).

The court continued:
The rule of mandate is similar to, but broader than, the law of the case doctrine. A district court, upon receiving the mandate of an appellate court cannot vary it or examine it for any other purpose than execution. Thus, a district court could not refuse to dismiss a case when the mandate required it, and a district court could not revisit its already final determinations unless the mandate allowed it[.]

Id., quoting Cote, 51 F.3d at 181 (citations omitted in original). Coto v. Astrue, No. CV 07-3559-PLA, 2008 WL 4642965, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008).

Here, as discussed above, Aurora fails to explain how this Court granting judgment on the pleadings under the exact same legal standard as the 12(b)(6) standard on which this Court has already been reversed would not violate the Rule of Mandate. This Court has reviewed the Opinion of the Court of Appeals and finds that it bars this Court from reconsidering dismissal under 12(b)(6) by way of a 12(c) motion. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Aurora’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 1833; CV 10-1547, Doc. 22) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is denied because the parties have been given multiple opportunities to address the issue of concern to the Court and have repeatedly failed to do so. Thus, the Court finds that oral argument would not aid the Court’s decisional process on this topic because the parties will not address it. See e.g., Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file a copy of this Order in both cases listed above.
FootNotes

1. Specifically, Aurora argues,
…, even if Stejic’s “and/or” allegation were [sic] generously construed as alleging Aurora caused the Deed to be recorded, Stejic offers zero factual enhancement for this bare allegation. Specifically, Stejic alleges no facts showing how or when Aurora allegedly caused QLS to record the Deed. Purely conclusory allegations of this type are insufficient to state a claim, and this pleading deficiency also requires dismissal. See Haller v. Advanced Indus. Comp. Inc., 13 F.Supp.3d 1027, 1029 (D. Ariz. 2014) (a motion for judgment on the pleadings, like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “is directed at the legal sufficiency of the opposing party’s pleadings”) (internal quotation omitted); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (a pleader must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do”).
Doc. 1833 at 6-7. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals stated:
Fourth, the MDL Court held that appellants had not pleaded their robosinging claims with sufficient particularity to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). We disagree. … [T]he CAC also alleges that Jim Montes, who purportedly signed the substitution of trustee for the property for Milan Stejic had, on the same day, “signed and recorded, with differing signatures, numerous Substitutions of Trustee in the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office….Many of the signatures appear visibly different than one another.” These and similar allegations of the CAC “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009) and provide defendants fair notice as to the nature of appellants’ claims against them, Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).
Doc. 1797-1 at 24-25. Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that the Court of Appeals has already directly decided that Plaintiff Stejic stated a claim against defendants.