New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Government’s Agreement with National Bank as Posted on Government Website Noticed for Its Terms

Download PDF

Lawrence v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40012 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2015):

A.  Standard of Review For Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only "if the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine only [*19]  if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254,106 S. Ct. 2505, 2513 (1986).

***

Wells Fargo had a foreclosure sale scheduled for December 6, 2011, some 22 days after the Lawrences returned their HAMP [Home Affordable Modification program] application on November 14, 2011.*** Wells Fargo had previously postponed multiple scheduled foreclosure sales on short notice to accommodate further negotiations concerning its in-house full repayment plans with the Lawrences. *** Furthermore, the terms of Wells Fargo's Service Provider Agreement (SPA) concerning the federal HAMP program likely required Wells Fargo to suspend the foreclosure sale until resolving the issue of whether the timely filed application was HAMP-eligible.6 Nevertheless, instead [*33]  of finally evaluating the Lawrences' HAMP application, Wells Fargo proceeded with the sale, stating it did not have enough time to review documentation received on December 2, 2014,

6   While the Lawrences lack standing to enforce the provisions of the SPA, see infra, Section III.B.5, Wells Fargo's contractual obligations under the SPA are public documents that the Court may consider sua sponte as evidence relevant to Defendants' alleged intentions regarding the negotiation of the Lawrences' loan modification. FED. R. EVID. 201. The Treasury has posted the terms of its SPA with Wells Fargo, signed by a Treasury representative, on the official www.treasury.gov website, as a self-authenticating public document. FED. R. EVID. 902. See Amended and Restated Commitment to Purchase Financial Instrument and Server Participation Agreement ("SPA") between Wells Fargo, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac (as designees of the U.S. Treasury), March 19, 2010, available at http://www.treasury.gov (last visited March 18, 2015).

The SPA obligates Wells Fargo to abide by the directives of the MHA Handbook, including the following: "When a servicer receives an Escalated Case . . . no later than midnight of the seventh business day prior to the foreclosure sale date (Deadline), [*34]  the servicer must suspend the sale as necessary to resolve the Escalated Case." MHA Handbook § 3.4.2. (emphasis added), available at https://www.hmpadmin.com (last visited March 18, 2015). Receipt of the Lawrences' HAMP application on November 14, 2011 likely triggered this suspension obligation, and the terms of the SPA and the MHA Handbook dictated that this November 14, 2011, application, including the later-requested, supplemental information received December 2, 2011, should have been considered before the foreclosure sale proceeded. See id.

While not an obligation Plaintiffs can enforce, Wells Fargo's decision to proceed with foreclosure before considering the HAMP application, despite the terms of the SPA and MHA Handbook, is circumstantial evidence which may be relevant to whether Plaintiffs have raised a fact issue regarding their various misrepresentation and fraud claims. See JJJJ Walker, LLC v. Yollick, 447 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tex. App.-Houston [14thDist.] 2014 (citing Aquaplex, Inc. v. Rancho La Valencia, Inc., 297 S.W.3d 768, 774-75 (Tex. 2009) (circumstantial evidence of intent or recklessness may be sufficient to support a fraud finding).

Wells Fargo admits these and other mistakes, untruths, and acts of negligence towards the Plaintiffs. And why not? [*35]  Wells Fargo can afford to be utterly candid about its malfeasance because Defendants contend the law does not currently recognize a cause of action that would render their treatment of Plaintiffs unlawful.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice