1024.41(h)(1), (4). Furthermore, to the extent that the Robinsons' claim is that Nationstar falsely stated that it would evaluate the Robinsons for all available loss mitigation plans, the Robinsons point only to statements in letters that the Robinsons "may" be eligible for certain non-HAMP loan modification programs. 2605(f)(1). Code Ann., Com. From January 2012 to December 2016, the CFPB and 50 state attorneys general claim Nationstar, which is now doing business asMr. Cooper, engaged in a number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. MCC JR 530. That provision provides, in parallel, that a loan servicer which does not comply with Regulation X is liable "to the borrower." uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results." The Robinsons do not address this argument in their Opposition. Eligible claimants will receive either $5 for a qualifying 600- watt model, $7 for a qualifying 900- watt model, or a $10 or $15 discount code for a new 600-watt or 900-watt blender, respectively. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. 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." Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. 1024.41(i). Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC: Complaint with jury demand First, to the extent that there was a period of time during which Nationstar failed to implement procedures to comply with RESPA, the facts establishing such a gap would be highly relevant to a pattern or practice determination and would be common in every case. 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. Rule 702 permits an expert to testify if the testimony "will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," "is based on sufficient facts or data," and "is the product of reliable principles and methods," and if the expert has "reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. On September 9, 2014, Nationstar sent Mr. Robinson a letter denying the loan modification application and stating that it could not offer him any modification because his income was not high enough to cover the mortgage payments under any modification option. Some courts have held that administrative costs that predate the alleged RESPA violation cannot constitute "actual damages." In focusing on whether RESPA violations can be established through computerized analysis rather than individual file review, the parties lose track of the fact that because statutory damages are predicated on a finding that there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations, that issue common to almost any individual claim plays an outsized role in the predominance analysis. Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. Law 13-316(c). 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). It follows that only borrowers may bring a claim that a loan servicer has violated Regulation X. Where a contingency fee arrangement for expert witnesses is not expressly prohibited by the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, the Court declines to find that the fee arrangement here constituted an ethical violation. 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. 2018). First, Nationstar correctly notes that Mr. Robinson, in his Motion, and Oliver, in his expert report, do not put forward any evidence establishing that the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met with respect to the claim that Nationstar did not evaluate borrowers "for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower," in violation of 12 C.F.R. . 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. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. hb```f&A G PX@$]55:q3bbf00dYaiDuVLt3C5X;:48:@A (400 @ H*brIe I1@ ]" $30yy"MXg3?Yar=`fB@EH32 R~ }9 See 12 C.F.R. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348-49 (2011) ("[A] class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members." 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. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the Court grants summary judgment if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. The MCPA prohibits the use of an "unfair or deceptive trade practice" in the "[t]he extension of consumer credit" or "[t]he collection of consumer debts" and provides for a private right of action. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The proposed settlement with the CFPB requires Nationstar to pay $73 million in restitution to affected borrowers, as well as a $1.5 million civil penalty to the agency. R. Civ. Pia McAdams, a class member, objected to the settlement, arguing that the Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." 14-3667, 2015 WL 4994491, at *1-2 (D. Md. Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. See Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042. This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. 1976) (holding that while it may be unethical for a lawyer to testify on behalf of a client as an expert, "it does not necessarily follow that any alleged professional misconduct" would require exclusion of the testimony because the rules of professional conduct do "not delineate rules of evidence"); United States v. Fogel, 901 F.2d 23, 26 (4th Cir. 2002) (affirming without addressing the propriety of the striking of the expert testimony). Cf. 1988) (distinguishing between a rule of professional conduct and admissibility of evidence); cf. J. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. See Farber, 2017 WL 4347826 at 15; Billings, 170 F. Supp. Fed. And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. R. Civ. That notice must be provided within 30 days of receiving the complete loss mitigation application. In February 2014, after their income had further decreased, the Robinsons ceased making payments on the mortgage loan. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC - Casetext Filed by Janie Robinson. Potentially eligible class members for all of these provisions can be identified through the LSAMS and Remedy data that marks that an application was received, identified as complete, and denied. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. Call Us Today (202) 973-0900Your Call is Confidential. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. He asserts that damages to borrowers can be calculated based on entries in LSAMS and other data showing that fees were assessed, and that it would be possible to identify which fees would not have been assessed but for a RESPA violation. 2003). Certification will not be granted as to the claims under 12 C.F.R. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. In response, on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson sent Nationstar the exact same application that he had submitted on March 7, 2014. On July 17, 2014, Nationstar informed Mr. Robinson by letter that he did not qualify for a HAMP modification and that since the March 14 loan modification offer had not been accepted, it was withdrawn. Md. Class certification will be granted, with Demetrius Robinson as the named plaintiff, as to both the Nationwide Class and the Maryland Class for the claims under 12 C.F.R. 27. judge. 2006). Neither the rule nor the comment, however, state whether Maryland is one such jurisdiction. 2010) (considering consistency of results that provide finality to the defendant as favoring a finding of superiority). In its complaint, filed in federal district court in the District of Columbia, the Bureau alleges that Nationstar engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and violated the Homeowner's Protection Act of 1998 (HPA). Code Ann., Com. Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. Thus, the Court concludes that common computerized analysis can largely answer the question of whether Nationstar violated these RESPA provisions with respect to individual borrowers. Nationstar to Pay $110 Million to Settle Borrower Claims In this photo illustration, the Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. logo seen displayed on a smartphone. Finally, where Nationstar has offered no specific argument in its brief, beyond those addressed above, to refute Oliver's proffered analysis for identifying RESPA violations arising from the failure to notify borrowers of their appeal rights or the failure to exercise diligence in requesting documents based on repeated requests for the same documents, 12 C.F.R. 2605(f)(1)(A)). 2015). See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. On August 26, 2014, Nationstar mailed another letter acknowledging 10696, 10708 (Feb. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 C.F.R. The distinction is crucial. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. More importantly, while a determination of an individual violation would not require extensive analysis, specific proof of a pattern or practice of RESPA violations in any individual case would be a substantial undertaking, likely requiring the same type of complex analysis proposed here: a sampling of Nationstar files, compilation of all relevant data for such files, expert analysis to identify violations, and an assessment whether the identified violations are sufficient to establish a pattern or practice of violations. Since the Court already considered and ruled on these issues, see supra part I.B, it will not revisit those arguments here. See 12 C.F.R. 2010). %PDF-1.6 % ; 78 Fed. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. Id. A "borrower" may enforce the provisions of Regulation X pursuant to 12 U.S.C. PDF United States District Court District of Maryland On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. 702, 703. Id. If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower.