This 2024 federal court brief filed in the Southern District of West Virginia on behalf of a class of consumers successfully argued that clicking a website to set up a free Experian account is not sufficient to bind the consumers to an arbitration clause found in the terms of use. See Cox v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., 2024 WL 3625859 (S.D. W. Va. Aug.
Mishandling of loan modification implementation: RESPA NOE, pattern and practice, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Javier Merino.
Complaint. Loss mitigation, trial plan and modification implementation. RESPA (NOE & RFI), UDAP, breach of contract, covenant of good faith and fair dealing, specific allegations of harm. Javier Merino
Mishandling of modification, escrow disputes, deferral transition. RESPA NOE. Javier Merino.
First Amended Complaint for Wrongful Foreclosure, E.D. Cal. filed Jan. 25, 2021, by Evan Livingstone, Calif. Rural Legal Assistance. Home already foreclosed and sold to bona fide purchaser, action for damages only. Franklin is servicer for Wilmington. Notice of default and notice of sale did not list correct amount due on second mortgage. Six claims: (1) breach of contract against Wilmington.
Homeowner’s discovery requests (combined interrogatories and document requests) to defendant servicer. Loss mitigation, fees, property inspections. Jeff Gentes.
Breen v. Midfirst Bank, D. Conn., Complaint May 2024 application of payments, escrow, UDAP, related Reg. X, and breach of contract. Lorraine Martinez Conn. Fair Housing
Tremalgio v. PHH Corp., D. Conn. April 2023. Complaint. Loss mitigation-related UDAP, RESPA, harm related to implementation of loan modification Jeff Gentes
Declaration of Richard Dubois, Proposed Cy Pres Recipient
Class action complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union, the country’s largest credit union, following a CNN report demonstrating a sharp disparity between approval rates for White mortgage applicants as compared to Hispanic and Black applicants. While the complaint does not directly allege redlining practices, it does claim that the credit union violated the ECOA, the FHA, and section 1981 of the federal Civil Rights Act by engaging in “systematic discrimination in housing, in violation of federal law.”
This 2024 brief reviews the requirements of the federal E-Sign Act, and argues that it precludes oral consent from meeting the requirement of prior express written consent. It also rebuts the caller's claim that the consumer's alleged oral consent to receive calls met the requirement of the FCC's regulations that an agreement to receive calls be signed by the consumer.
This is a 2023 class complaint filed in the Western District of Washington that the mobile phone carrier failed to protect customers personal and financial information and that this resulted in a SIM card swapping scam, so that the scammer gained control of the customers’ phone number and phone account without gaining possession of the customer’s phone. Claims against T-Mobile included negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, UDAP, violations of the Federal Communications Act, and other federal claims.
This is a 2020 individual complaint filed in the Central District of California that the mobile phone carrier failed to protect customers personal and financial information and that this resulted in a SIM card swapping scam, so that the scammer gained control of the customers’ phone number and phone account without gaining possession of the customer’s phone. Claims against ATT included that the agreement and disclaimers were unconscionable and against public policy, deceit by concealment, misrepresentation, negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, breach of contract, and vi
This is a 2019 individual complaint filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina that the mobile phone carrier failed to protect customers personal and financial information and that this resulted in a SIM card swapping scam, so that the scammer gained control of the customers’ phone number and phone account without gaining possession of the customer’s phone. Claims against ATT included negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, the North Carolina Anti-Hacking statute, UDAP, and violations of the Federal Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
This letter is a formal demand for damages due to violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq., and various North Carolina laws, including, but not limited to, common law negligence and violations of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices statute (“UDAP”), N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, et seq.
Complaint and Demand for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Second Amended Class Action complaint involving HAMP TPP claims, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, UDAP, fraudulent misrepresentation Wigod v Wells Fargo Bank, July 2012 (N.D. Ill.), later favorable Seventh Circuit decision WIGOD, Finlinson and Finlinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Complaint RESPA loss mitigation, inadequate response to RFI and NOE, negligence, UDAP. TANASI and Tanasi, Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and M&T Bank, as Successor by Merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, N.A., Defendant., 2016 WL 11048311 (D.Conn.) RESPA, UDAP, negligence (RESPA servicing dismissed) Case brought by Connecticut Fair Housing Center, attorney Jeff Gentes.
Motion to compel answers to interrogatories, investor guidelines Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012 and motion to compel further answers to interrogatories Nov 12, 2012 WIGOD, Finlinson and Finlinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Motion to compel answers to interrogatories, investor guidelines Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012 and motion to compel further answers to interrogatories Nov 12, 2012 WIGOD, Dan Finlinson and Finlinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Post-Hearing memorandum, addressing tolling of interest, costs and fees, requesting sanctions against servicer attorney, non-borrower role in FHA loan. NY trial court May 2018 Carrington Mortgage v Morain.
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint: RESPA loss mitigation, RFI, and NOE rules, negligence, UDAP
Tanasi v Citimortgage D. Conn. Oct. 2016 TANASI and Tanasi, Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and M&T Bank, as Successor by Merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, N.A., Defendant., 2016 WL 11048311 (D.Conn.)
RESPA, UDAP, negligence (RESPA servicing dismissed)
Jeff Gentes
Brief in Opposition to motion to dismiss complaint, raising HAMP TPP claims of breach of contract, UDAP.
Memorandum in opposition to motion to strike counterclaim in judicial foreclosure, arguing misconduct in implementing HAMP, claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and UDAP. Bank of America v Izzo CT Superior Court April 2015.
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint: RESPA loss mitigation, RFI, and NOE rules, negligence, UDAP Tanasi v Citimortgage D. Conn. Oct. 2016 TANASI and Tanasi, Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and M&T Bank, as Successor by Merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, N.A., Defendant., 2016 WL 11048311 (D.Conn.)
RESPA, UDAP, negligence (RESPA servicing dismissed) Jeff Gentes
Jury instructions, UDAP and RESPA claims. MD trial court undated Shankle v Ocwen Servicing
First Amended Complaint filed Oct. 11, 2021, E.D.N.Y., by Rachel Geballe Brooklyn Legal Services.
Claims against servicer and its law firm. FDCPA and UDAP claims, statute of limitation.
This 2019 New York state court complaint seeks pursuant to New York law to cancel a home equity line of credit (HELC) mortgage and enjoin any action against the homeowner’s property because the statute of limitations has run after the creditor accelerated the HELC payments. In addition, the creditor failed to comply with federal requirements (the 2MP program) concerning modification of the first mortgage that should have extinguished the HELC. The action is brought by Petroff Amshen LLP.
Complaint filed Dec. 17, 2021, E.D. Va. by Kristi Kelly.
TILA §1641(g) class claim against United on behalf of class of all consumers with loans assigned to United in past year who did not receive §1641(g) notice. FDCPA claims under §§1692e & f for foreclosing and claiming interest and fees not owed. Contractual cure notice stated incorrect cure amount. Breach of contract claim based on non-compliance with condition precedent (service of accurate notice) required by deed of trust.
Complaint filed Dec. 3, 2021 N.D. Ga. by Rachel Scott Atlanta Legal Aid.
First Amended Complaint dated July 17, 2017, E.D. Pa. by Joanne Werdel Community Legal Services Phila.
Adversary proceeding objecting to bankruptcy proof of claim, Bankr. D. Mass. 2021 by Roger Bertling Harvard Legal Clinic,
Claims focused on origination. Seeks recoupment and set off to deny or reduce creditor claim. 2005 80/20 loan. Payments exceeded borrower income, no underwriting. Claims: (1) UDAP; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing focused on foreclosing unconscionable loan without loss mitigation; (3) unconscionability.
This is a jury instruction in an FDCPA case that includes 29 separate instructions. Many apply to the FDCPA case, such as nature and element of the claims, violations of the act, least sophisticated standard, bona fide error defense, and actual and statutory damages. Others are of a more general nature, such as the province of the jury, burden of proof, objections, stipulations, duty in deliberating, and verdict forms.
This is an opposition to a motion to dismiss in a case complaining that a debt collector disclosed the consumer’s personal and financial information a letter vendor. The consumers argue that a requirement that financial data be kept confidential does not violate the First Amendment, that the debt collector violated the plain language of 15 U.S.C. s. 1692c(b), and that the debt collector’s statutory construction arguments lack merit.
This is a trial brief in a FDCPA case where the collector threatened foreclosure on the wrong house and tried to collect from the wrong person, the collector had no intent to foreclose, and the collector had no authority to collect the debt. The brief was written by Gregory Reichenbach, a Perrysburg, Ohio attorney, and Edward Icove, a Cleveland, Ohio attorney.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellant AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T) on the grounds that its automated text message survey system did not constitute an Automatic Telephone Dialing System as defined by the TCPA.
This complaint (the names have redacted to protect identities) was filed in the Federal District Court of Minnesota by Peter F.
These interrogatories (the names have redacted to protect identities) were submitted in a case filed in the Federal District Court of Minnesota by Peter F.
hese document requests (the names have redacted to protect identities) were submitted in a case filed in the Federal District Court of Minnesota by Peter F.
Class action complaint regarding debits and overdraft fees. Filed June 6, 2014.
Federal Court Complaint Against Land Contract Servicer (Statebridge Company)