On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Id. The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. See 12 C.F.R. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. or misleading oral or written statement . Nelson, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (collecting cases). After attempts to modify their loan failed, the Robinsons filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ("Nationstar") for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. An expert's testimony is "critical" where it is "important to an issue decisive for the motion for class certification." Through both a declaration by a Nationstar Vice President of Default Servicing, Brandon Anderson, and an expert report by Stuart D. Gurrea, Nationstar contests Oliver's analysis and endeavors to establish that the only way to identify RESPA violations using Nationstar's data is through a file-by-file review. See Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1046-47 (holding that representative sampling was a permissible method to prove whether time spent donning and doffing gear resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act). That is not so here. 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. Your Email Please enter your email. The Complaint asserts two claims. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not prohibit these kinds of arrangements. Code Ann., Com. Moreover, Nationstar cites no authority for the proposition that a loss mitigation application would not be deemed "complete" for purposes of RESPA upon such a formal designation, and any rule that would deem such an application incomplete in the event that an underwriter subsequently decided to ask for additional material would be entirely unworkable. See id. The loan is then evaluated for loan modification options. He was retained by the Robinsons under an arrangement through which he is to be paid a flat fee of $125,000: $62,500 up front, with an additional $62,500 to be paid if a class is certified in this case. 2605(f)(2), "Rule 23 contains no suggestion that the necessity for individual damage determinations destroys commonality, typicality, or predominance, or otherwise forecloses class certification." 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. First, as a threshold matter, the Court notes that in ruling on Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, it will grant judgment in favor of Nationstar as to Mrs. Robinson's claims, Mr. Robinson's RESPA claims under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. Since the parties do not argue that the Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass differ for the purposes of the class certification analysis, the Court will analyze them together. Id. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." See Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) ("When 'one or more of the central issues in the action are common to the class and can be said to predominate, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative defense peculiar to some individual class members.'" You will receive no benefits from the Settlement, but will retain any rights you currently have to sue Nationstar about the same claims in this case. Relevant factual and procedural background is set forth in the Court's prior Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Nationstar's partial Motion to Dismiss. J. 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii) and Md. 2005))). Law 13-316(c). Home Loans, No. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Auto. For example, since default fees are often paid by sources other than the borrower, such as in a short sale or refinancing, Nationstar challenges Oliver's assessment that fees identified through LSAMS can be deemed to constitute damages from RESPA violations, because the software does not reflect who paid the fee. "); see also 1 William Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions 2:3 (5th ed. Id. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. On November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide. The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. 1972). P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results." They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . MCC JR 530. As to the third denial on November 7, 2013, Nationstar informed the Robinsons that the loan modification application was denied because the mortgage loan was not in default. P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. "[A] trial court should consider the specific factors identified in Daubert where they are reasonable measures of the reliability of expert testimony." 2605(f). In response, on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson sent Nationstar the exact same application that he had submitted on March 7, 2014. "We will be watching the mortgage interest industry to ensure they are treating homeowners fairly and fulfilling their obligations.". Reg. Although the Robinsons contend that they would have pursued other loss mitigation options in the absence of the RESPA violations, they have not identified any such options in a way that would permit a calculation of damages associated with any lost opportunity. At least one court has found a similar expert report by Oliver to meet the Daubert standard. ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Am. Id. 3d at 1014. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), 1024.41(b)(1), the Court concludes that common computerized analysis will substantially advance the resolution of such claims, even if not entirely eliminating the need for reviewing certain specific file documents. Sep. 9, 2019). As for the claims of errors in Oliver's analysis, although this criticism is couched as his "misunderstanding the nature of Nationstar's various databases," Nationstar largely challenges Oliver's failure to use particular data fields, some which were never made available to him. See Md. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. . Nationstar argues that it should be granted summary judgment on all of the RESPA claims because Nationstar was required to comply with Regulation X only as to a borrower's first loss mitigation application, and the Robinsons' March 7, 2014 application was not their first loan modification application. Distribution of funds to Class Members, however, could not occur because a member of the Class filed an objection to the Settlement and a subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Nationstar, the fourth-largest mortgage servicer in the U.S., is set to pay $91 million to settle claims brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state attorneys general alleging. Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018 over failing to have proper procedures in place and "unfair and deceptive" mortgage modification policies. HARRISBURG Attorney General Josh Shapiro, as part of a multistate effort, today announced that his office obtained an $86.3 million settlement from Nationstar Mortgage, the country's fourth-largest mortgage servicer. Order at 2, ECF No. Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. 1024.41 See Stillmock, 385 F. App'x at 274 ("[T]here is no reasoned basis to conclude that the fact that an individual plaintiff can recover attorney's fees in addition to statutory damages of up to $1,000 will result in enforcement of [the Fair Credit Reporting Act] by individual actions of a scale comparable to the potential enforcement by way of class action."). v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. Any additional updates will be posted here. 2d 452, 467 (D. Md. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. Rather than striking the testimony, the Court may need to consider permitting supplemental discovery to correct for the lack of relevant data not previously made available to Oliver. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. After several customers of Green Earth Services canceled its services, the Robinsons sought loss mitigation in the form of a loan modification from Nationstar. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. See MCC JR0529-31. Code Ann., Com. After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. at *5. Based on his experience and review of deposition transcripts of Nationstar employees, Oliver asserts that Nationstar has computerized data from which RESPA violations may be identified, not least because Nationstar must be able to demonstrate its compliance with RESPA to regulators. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. Oliver is the Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop Advisors LLC, a financial services consulting, compliance audit, and accounting advisory firm, and has extensive experience conducting compliance reviews for mortgage servicers, including for compliance with loss mitigation procedures. 2601(a). See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) ("In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met."). The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. 143. MSJ JR 0284. If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . Courts have held that a person who did not sign the promissory note is not a "borrower" for the purposes of RESPA because that individual has not "assumed the loan." Throughout discovery, Nationstar repeatedly stated that it could not produce the data on loss mitigation or loan modification applications from its databases in the form requested by the Robinsons. Fed. Although Monday's case specifically addresses Nationstar's actions following the Great Recession, the outcome can affect today's homeowners, says Kwame Raoul, attorney general of Illinois. Moreover, whether Nationstar engaged in a "pattern or practice" of Regulation X violations, within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. The Borrower Payment Amount shall be used: (1) for payments to borrowers who submit claims and are in either or both of the Service Transfer and Property Preservation Populations set forth below; and (2) for reasonable costs and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, including taxes and fees for tax counsel. Id. Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. Class Cert. As a result, on January 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge granted the Robinsons' Motion to Compel in which the Robinsons had sought to have the Court order Nationstar to accept and run scripts created by the Robinsons' expert to extract the relevant data from Nationstar's databases on the sample of loans from which they could test their methodology for identifying members of the proposed classes. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. Since Mr. Robinson has the same goal as the other class members of establishing that Nationstar violated Regulation X with respect to his loan, he will adequately protect their interests. The fact that Oliver's methodology has not been subjected to peer review and that he has not published any articles about it does not invalidate it. "When these issues were identified several years ago, we immediately made restitution to our impacted customers and invested in process improvements to prevent reoccurrence," Jay Bray, CEO and chairman of Mr. Cooper said in a statement Monday. EQT Prod. Finally, a loan servicer "is only required to comply with the requirements" of section 1024.41 "for a single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower's mortgage loan account." 2. Where such statements in no way promise approval, the Robinsons appear to claim that such statements are false or misleading because Nationstar never intended to, and did not, evaluate the Robinsons for the various loss mitigation options. that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." Thus, a loan servicer could not have complied with Regulation X for a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 because there was no regulation in effect with which to comply. 14-cv-10457, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.. Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation. They do not seek damages in the Amended Complaint for emotional distress or include such a claim in their itemized list of damages submitted in discovery. . 2605(f). A class action allows representative parties to prosecute not only their own claims, but also the claims of other individuals which present similar issues. LLC, No. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. Nationstar also does not argue that the class is not numerous, as there approximately 33,855 members who submitted loss mitigation applications from January 10, 2014 to March 30, 2014. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC 1:2021cv00452 | US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio | Justia Log In Sign Up Find a Lawyer Ask a Lawyer Research the Law Law Schools Laws & Regs Newsletters Marketing Solutions Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Northern District Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Robinson v. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). WASHINGTON, D.C. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today ordered Nationstar Mortgage LLC to pay a $1.75 million civil penalty for violating the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) by consistently failing to report accurate data about mortgage transactions for 2012 through 2014.
Powershell Check If Kb Is Installed On Remote Computer,
Who Is Brittney Griner Father?,
List Of Countries Where Nike Shoes Are Being Sold,
Is Tooling U Accredited,
Omak Chronicle Police Blotter,
Articles R