Representative Sample of Servicing Class Actions
1
COURT
NATURE OF SUIT
STATUS/ISSUES OF INTEREST
United States District
Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee
Putative nationwide class action against loan
servicer and its employees concerning whether the
named plaintiffs’ mortgage loan was delinquent or
in default, and whether loan servicer violated
statutory and common law in connection with its
efforts to collect their debt. Plaintiffs allege
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act, and common law claims for fraud
and misrepresentation.
The Court denied certification of
plaintiffs’ FDCPA and state law
consumer protection claims. The Court
also dismissed the RICO claims against
the servicer.
United States District
Court for the Central
District of Utah
Putative Utah class action against loan servicer
alleging, among other things, that servicer charged
excessive late fees and improper inspection fees,
and failed to respond to qualified written requests.
Plaintiffs allege violations of RESPA, the Utah
Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and common law claims
for breach of contract, negligence, implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment.
The case settled on an individual basis
prior to ruling on motion for class
certification or filing of dispositive
motions.
United States District
Court for the Northern
District of Illinois
Putative class action alleging violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with
the defendant loan servicer’s use of a third party
vendor to offer assistance to debtors in default.
The Court denied plaintiff’s motion for
class certification. The case settled on
an individual basis after the denial of
the motion for class certification.
United States District
Court for the Northern
District of New York
Putative class action concerning purported activity
in connection with mortgage loan servicing
company’s alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the New
York Consumer Protection Act, common law
claims for breach of contract, fraud, negligence,
and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing.
The Court granted a portion of
defendants’ motions to dismiss,
dismissed, sua sponte, plaintiff’s class
action allegations, and granted
summary judgment for defendants on
the remaining individual claims.
1
For a more comprehensive list of the firm’s class action cases broken down by issues and/or topics, please see the
K&L Gates Representative Consumer Finance Class Action Matters list.
BOS-1223767 v511
COURT
NATURE OF SUIT
STATUS/ISSUES OF INTEREST
United States District
Court for the Southern
District of Florida
Putative class action asserted against loan servicer
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida analogue to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act based on allegations
that loan servicer improperly placed calls to
plaintiff’s cellular telephone, improperly utilized
auto-dialers, and that servicer communicated
directly with plaintiff despite his representation by
counsel.
The parties settled the case on an
individual basis prior to class
certification or the filing of dispositive
motions.
Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois
Putative Illinois class action alleging that loan
servicer improperly used “suspense accounts” to
hold borrowers’ funds instead of crediting them to
amounts owed under the note and mortgage.
Claims alleged for breach of contract (alleged
violation of note and mortgage), unfair and
deceptive practice in violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, and common law claim for
unjust enrichment.
The case settled on individual basis
prior to ruling on motion for class
certification or filing of dispositive
motions.
Superior Court of the State
of California in the City
and County of San
Francisco
Putative California class action alleging that
servicer violated California’s Unfair Business
Practices Act, Business and Professions Code, §
17200 et seq. for allegedly wrongful posting of late
charges, force placing unnecessary casualty
insurance and sharing excessive premiums,
imposing and collecting escrow fees and attorney’s
fees that were not actually incurred, imposing and
collecting fees for property inspections, initiating
unjustified foreclosure proceedings and by coercing
borrowers to remit payments through an expedited
payment system from which the servicer allegedly
benefits.
After full briefing by the parties and
oral argument before the Court
addressing whether the action was
suitable for class treatment, plaintiffs
withdrew their motion for class
certification. The case settled on an
individual basis.
United States District
Court for the Southern
District of Ohio
Putative nationwide class against loan servicer
arising from theft or misappropriation by unknown
third parties of loan servicer’s computer hardware
containing certain borrower information and
subsequent notice of same by loan servicer to
affected borrowers. Plaintiff alleged negligence,
invasion of privacy, breach of the duty of
confidentiality, fraud, unauthorized use of
computer, and violations of the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act.
The Court granted loan servicer’s
motion for summary judgment
dismissing all of plaintiff’s individual
claims and denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification as moot.
-2-
COURT
NATURE OF SUIT
STATUS/ISSUES OF INTEREST
United States District
Court for the Southern
District of New York
Putative class action alleging that defendant loan
servicer’s practices concerning private mortgage
insurance on Fannie Mae insured residential
mortgages, particularly the charging of and failure
to promptly terminate such insurance, violate the
New York General Business Laws, Section 349
(unfair and deceptive trade practices) and constitute
a breach of contract.
The District Court granted defendant’s
motion to dismiss.
United States District
Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana
Putative Louisiana class action alleging that
defendant loan servicer breached residential
mortgage contracts by refusing to endorse
homeowners’ insurance settlement proceeds checks
to the putative class members for losses and
damages to property caused by Hurricane Katrina.
The case settled on individual basis
prior to motion for class certification or
filing of dispositive motions.
United States District
Court for the Northern
District of Alabama
Putative class action alleging certain wrongdoing in
connection with the servicing of residential
mortgage loans in Alabama, including allegations
that defendant improperly lender-placed insurance
and sought to collect other allegedly unauthorized
fees.
The cases settled on an individual basis
before class certification.
United States District
Court for the District of
Arizona
Represent loan servicer in multiple putative class
actions and individual actions in multidistrict
litigation proceeding. Plaintiffs in these actions
allege fraud and other wrongdoing arising out of
the identification of Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) on deeds of
trust and mortgages in states that allow for nonjudicial foreclosure.
Motions to dismiss have been granted
in all cases; the remaining putative class
claims are now before the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals.
United States District
Court for the District of
Massachusetts
Putative Massachusetts class action alleging that
defendant loan servicer failed to provide plaintiffs
with permanent loan modifications after plaintiffs
received trial period modifications under HAMP.
Plaintiffs asserted state law claims for breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and
violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
93A.
The case settled on an individual basis
prior to class certification.
United States District
Court for the Central
District of California
Putative California class action alleging that
defendant loan servicer collected HAMP trial
period modification payments in violation of the
California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiffs alleged that because their loan was held
in a securitized trust which prohibited loan
modifications, their loan was ineligible for a
permanent HAMP modification.
The district court granted defendant’s
motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim and denied plaintiffs’ motion to
remand. The parties settled the action
on an individual basis after plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth
Circuit.
-3-
COURT
NATURE OF SUIT
STATUS/ISSUES OF INTEREST
United States District
Court for the Southern
District of New York
Putative nationwide class action alleging breach of
contract, promissory estoppel, violation of New
York General Business Law § 349, violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, and violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act premised on the alleged
failure of loan servicers to service loans pursuant to
the terms of permanent loan modifications provided
under either the Home Affordable Modification
Program (HAMP) or the servicers’
alternative/custom loan modification programs.
The Court granted the motions to
dismiss filed by parent-company
defendants. The Court dismissed all
claims against the prior servicer of
plaintiffs’ loans. The Court also
dismissed many of the claims originally
asserted against the current servicer of
plaintiffs’ loans. A pleadings status
conference is scheduled; plaintiffs may
seek to re-plead or amend certain of
their claims based on the Court’s
opinion.
United States District
Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia
Putative class action alleging violations of state law
premised on the alleged failure of loan servicer to
provide a permanent loan modification under the
Home Affordable Modification Program and
alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act in connection with the issuance of adverse
action notices.
The parties settled the case on an
individual basis after the Court’s denial
of defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Circuit Court for Kanawha
County in West Virginia /
West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals
Putative West Virginia class action alleging that
defendant loan servicer violated the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act by assessing
allegedly improper foreclosure-related fees on the
named plaintiffs’ and putative class members’
loans.
Defendant filed a Motion to Compel
Individual Arbitration based upon an
arbitration agreement and class action
waiver contained in the named
plaintiffs’ deed of trust. After the trial
court denied the servicer’s motion to
compel arbitration, servicer appealed
and the West Virginia Supreme Court
of Appeals reversed the trial court and
ordered the case to individual
arbitration.
Superior Court of New
Jersey, Union County,
Law Division
Putative New Jersey class action alleging that
trustee for relevant securitization trust violated the
New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract,
Warranty, and Notice Act premised upon an
alleged violation of the New Jersey Fair
Foreclosure Act in connection with the issuance by
the loan servicers for the trustee of allegedly
improper notices of intent to foreclose.
Defendant has filed a Motion to
Compel Individual Arbitration based
upon an arbitration agreement and a
class action waiver contained in the
named plaintiff’s deed of trust.
United States District
Court for the Southern
District of Ohio
Putative nationwide class action (excluding New
Hampshire) in which plaintiffs allege that the
defendant mortgage loan servicer’s sending of
monthly statements to chapter 13 bankruptcy
debtors violates the automatic stay provisions in the
federal bankruptcy code.
The Court granted servicer’s motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and
plaintiffs failed to timely pursue action
in bankruptcy court.
-4-
COURT
NATURE OF SUIT
STATUS/ISSUES OF INTEREST
United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of
Nevada
Putative class action asserted against trustee of
securitization trust challenging the role of vendor in
bankruptcy process and alleging that defendants
violated the Bankruptcy Code and engaged in
wrongful foreclosure practices by sharing attorneys'
fees with non-attorneys.
The Court granted the defendants’
various motions to dismiss and denied
the debtor’s motion for reconsideration.
United States District
Court for the Western
District of Missouri
Putative Missouri class action alleging that
defendant loan servicer violated the Missouri
Second Mortgage Loan Act by collecting interest
payments in connection with Missouri mortgage
loans that were originated in violation of the
Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act.
This case settled on an individual basis
before class certification.
Superior Court of the State
of California in the County
of Orange
Putative class action alleging claims related to the
improper assessment of late fees and alleging
violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices
Act § 17200, California Civil Code § 2954.4(b),
California Financial Code §§ 50130(g) and
50204(i), in connection with the alleged assessment
of late fees where borrowers allegedly made timely
payments.
Defendants successfully defeated
plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
After the Court’s denial of the motion
for class certification, the parties settled
the case on an individual basis.
Superior Court of the State
of California in the County
of Orange
Putative California class action alleging that
servicer violated California common and statutory
law in connection with the origination and
servicing of mortgage loans, including allegations
related to assignments of mortgage, applications of
payments, and loan modifications generally.
The Court granted defendant’s motion
to dismiss and dismissed all claims
against defendant with prejudice.
Supreme Court of New
York, Kings County
Putative nationwide class action brought by way of
counterclaim alleging that that servicer failed to
timely make city tax payments from escrow
accounts.
The Court granted motion to dismiss
class action counterclaims.
-5-