A code is entered in Remedy Star when the letter is sent. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. 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."). 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. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. 26-1. Although the parties have not offered specific details on the nature and timing of those costs and fees, it is reasonable to infer that at least some portion of them were incurred after they submitted their March 7, 2014 loan modification application and after Nationstar had violated Regulation X. 1 Nationstar later conceded that at the time the Robinsons submitted their application, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with Section 1024.41. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. Although each class member must individually show that they suffered "actual damages" under 12 U.S.C. 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. Nationstar filed a notice of settlement and a joint motion to proceed before a magistrate . The CFPB estimates about 40,000 borrowers were harmed by Nationstar's allegedly unfair and deceptive practices, according to a statement released Monday. Congress enacted RESPA to protect consumers from "unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices" in the real estate mortgage industry, and to ensure "that consumers throughout the Nation are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process." Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. 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. Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be granted against Mrs. Robinson because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA. The "Maryland Subclass" consists of "[a]ll persons in the State of Maryland that submitted a loss mitigation application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's certification order." Where the cost of litigation as compared to the potential recovery gives class members little incentive to bring suit, and there is little reason to individually control the litigation, a class action is a superior method to vindicate the rights of class members. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. R. Civ. 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. These fees allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington state Collection Agency Act. 2d 1360, 1366 (S.D. See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) because there is no evidence in the record that Nationstar violated those provisions. Nationstar's criticism that Oliver failed to use the correct data field to identify the date when a loss mitigation application was complete, and failed to consider the timing of application relative to the date of scheduled foreclosure sale, ring hollow because Nationstar provided to Oliver only limited data fields, which did not contain clear field names or definitions. Under subsection (h), if a loan servicer receives a complete loss mitigation application more than 90 days before a foreclosure sale but then denies the application, the servicer must allow the borrower to appeal and must respond to the appeal within 30 days of receiving it. 2016) ("[F]ortuitous non-injury to a subset of class members does not necessarily defeat certification of the entire class, particularly as the district court is well situated to winnow out those non-injured members at the damages phase of the litigation, or to refine the class definition. Furthermore, the Robinsons have made a sufficient showing that a central computerized analysis of Nationstar data would substantially, if not completely, resolve questions of whether RESPA violations occurred. On June 16, 2017, the Magistrate Judge bifurcated discovery to focus initially on the merits of the Robinsons' individual claim and the question of class certification, ordered Nationstar to disclose electronic records so that the Robinsons could sample Nationstar's data for purposes of a motion for class certification, and limited the discovery of such records to a sample of 400 loans from the period from January 10, 2014 to June 30, 2014 and "to areas which inform" the Court's decision on class certification, namely whether Nationstar was in compliance with Regulation X. Mot. Many impacted consumers have already received refunds and more will be contacted by the settlement administrator in the coming weeks. Before relating the facts relevant to the Motion for Class Certification, the Court will highlight the relevant procedural history affecting the record before the Court. Local R. 105.6. All Rights Reserved. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In support of this argument, Nationstar contends that the ethical rules for attorneys prohibit contingency fee arrangements with expert witnesses. (quoting East Tex. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), (c)(1)(ii); Md. 1024.41(a). 1024.1 to 1024.41 and known as "Regulation X," see 12 C.F.R. Baez, 709 F. App'x at 983. Id. Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equip. 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. Law 13-301 and 13-303, because the Robinsons do not have standing to bring those claims. You will not receive a payment if you fail to timely submit a completed Claim Form, and you will give up your right to bring your own lawsuit against the Defendant about the claims in this case. Code Ann., Com. Mot. Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), which requires that an acknowledgment letter be sent within five days of receipt of a loan modification application; or 12 C.F.R. Where the results of such an analysis would apply to any individual claim, it would be highly inefficient and wasteful to require duplicative analysis in each such case. Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. 2016) (dicta). Mr. Robinson's counsel is experienced in complex civil litigation and class action litigation. . In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. Law 13-316(e), for the reasons stated above, see supra part I.B.4, the Robinsons have provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact whether they have suffered economic damages, in the form of administrative costs, fees, and interest. While Mr. Robinson sought to reduce his monthly mortgage payment in applying for a loan modification, his deposition testimony reflects that he understands that the present lawsuit contends that Nationstar did not process the Robinsons' loan modification application correctly. See Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F. Supp. Furthermore, Oliver states that since Nationstar employees used templates to communicate with borrowers, he could determine whether there were violations of certain RESPA provisions based on entries showing that Nationstar employees used templates that did not comply with RESPA. Id. Code Ann., Com. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. The Class is represented by Rafey S. Balabanian of Edelson PC. Under subsections (f) and (g), a loan servicer is not permitted to begin foreclosure proceedings or move for foreclosure judgment if "a borrower submits a complete loss mitigation application" except in certain circumstances. While the date that Nationstar's systems came into compliance, is unknown, Nationstar's systematic noncompliance presents common questions of law and fact for all class members. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. Because there are, at a minimum, disputed issues of fact as to what fees, administrative costs, and interest constitute damages, the Court will deny the motion for summary judgment on the issue of actual damages. Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. or misleading oral or written statement . If the application is complete "more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale," the servicer may not move for a foreclosure judgment or conduct a foreclosure sale, but instead must first "[e]valuate the borrower for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower," send to the borrower "a notice in writing stating the servicer's determination of which loss mitigation options, if any, it will offer," and include a statement of applicable appeal rights. Id. Cent. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. For example, it was undisputed that on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson, in response to Nationstar's requests for additional information, resubmitted the same information sent with his March 2014 loan modification application. 12 U.S.C. 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." 1993) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1001 n.13 (1982)). Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. 2015). TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. 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. In Robinson v., Under the RESPA, civil liability is limited to "borrowers": "[w]hoever fails to comply with any provision of, Full title:DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. Finally, the Court notes that a decision to certify a class is based on whether or not a putative class satisfies the Rule 23 factors, not on a preliminary assessment of the underlying merits of the claim. Between July 2010 and November 2013, the Robinsons submitted and Nationstar denied three applications for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). Class Cert. During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. Date: September 9, 2019, Civil Action No. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must rely on facts in the record, and not assertions in the pleadings. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Id. P. 23(a)(1). The Fourth Circuit has stated that 74 members is "well within the range appropriate for class certification," Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 F.2d 136, 145 (4th Cir. Id. Code Ann., Com. Nationstar also seeks summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under the MCPA, which include claims of misleading statements in connection with the collection of consumer debts, in violation of section 13-301(1), (3) and section 13-303(4)-(5) of the MCPA, and claims that Nationstar did not respond to consumer inquiries within 15 days, in violation of section 13-316(c) of the MCPA.