Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Financing Maintenance, and Loancare relocated to discount Plaintiff’s claims pursuant so you can Federal Code off Municipal Processes twelve(b)(6), and undersigned issued a report and you may recommendation indicating the new action become granted towards the [#19]
It Statement and you may Testimonial inquiries the following three actions: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out-of Situations meant for Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Default Judgment [#17], which the Courtroom construes just like the Plaintiff’s Motion getting Standard Judgment facing Offender Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit off Facts in support of Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amp Askanase Law practice Standard Wisdom [#18], that your Courtroom construes because Plaintiff’s Activity to have Standard View up against Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you may (3) Offender Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Laws twelve(b)(6) Actions so you’re able to Write off having Bias [#21]. Following District Legal adopted the newest undersigned’s early in the day declaration and you will recommendation, the latest Court re also-introduced this case to the undersigned to have disposition of all of the left pretrial issues [#28]. The brand new undersigned have power to get in this testimonial pursuant in order to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Toward grounds established lower than, we recommend that Plaintiff’s Action to own Standard Judgment up against Offender Ginnie Mae [#17] feel Declined; Plaintiff’s Action to have Default Wisdom against Defendant Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] getting Overlooked Due to the fact MOOT; and you will Defendant Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Code 12(b)(6) Action to Dismiss which have Bias [#21] feel Offered. The newest undersigned after that advises the Section Judge disregard in place of prejudice Plaintiff’s left says facing Ginnie Mae sua sponte.
Additionally, the fresh new undersigned discovered that Plaintiff’s allegation concerning your recording out of a couple of lien launches failed to produce one plausible allege as the the new releases, even when pertaining to the house or property in question, alarmed an alternate mortgage unrelated to that fit
Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., proceeding professional se, submitted his Problem on the [#3] up against Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Financing Servicing, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you may Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s claims question assets found at 7727 Windview Means, San Antonio, Colorado 78244 and you may a purportedly illegal decide to try during the foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] from the dos, 33.) Plaintiff’s Ailment, even when extended, include not too many factual accusations and also lacks a reason out of the fresh new people to differentiate brand new alleged misconduct of your some Defendants. However, construing Plaintiff’s Complaint or any other pleadings liberally, it appears that he’s alleging he renegotiated their financing with a brand new promissory notice on the , and therefore mention effortlessly reduced the loan in a way that any sample at the property foreclosure was unlawful. (Id. at the 2.) The causes of action asserted during the Plaintiff’s Issue are also unsure, however, Plaintiff appears to be asserting claims away from unlawful foreclosure, infraction of deal, ripoff, and denial out-of due process, in addition to abuses of the Colorado Organization and you can Commerce www.pdqtitleloans.com/payday-loans-sc/ Password §3.603, the situation For the Credit Operate (“TILA”), the actual Property Payment Actions Act (“RESPA”), the brand new Racketeer Swayed and you may Corrupt Organizations Work (“RICO”), additionally the Consistent Commercial Code (“UCC”). (Id. on step 3-twenty eight.) Linked to Plaintiff’s Complaint are certain data one to presumably support their claims. (Id. on 33-60.)
On statement, the fresh undersigned determined that Plaintiff’s allegation he came across extent due into the their loan of the entry a different sort of note so you can Flagstar Financial didn’t produce one facially plausible allege, due to the fact notice linked to Plaintiff’s Criticism appeared as if unilaterally drafted and you will executed by Plaintiff inside attempt to customize the loan’s terms. Finally, the new undersigned learned that Plaintiff’s states lower than RILA, Control Z, and you can RESPA was indeed prohibited from the ruling law regarding limitations and Plaintiff’s UCC and you will Tx Business and you may Business Password states were unsuccessful because a question of legislation mainly because regulations do not control liens toward property.
Add Your Comment