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

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

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