David Mejia v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
Filing
Opinion issued by court as to Appellant David Mejia. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions. (Opinion corrected on 8/8/17. Appendix attached.)--[Edited 08/08/2017 by JRP]
<![CDATA[
Case: 16-16353
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16353
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:16-cv-82169-BB
DAVID MEJIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 8, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-16353
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
Page: 2 of 10
David Mejia brought this case in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County,
Florida, by filing a two-count complaint. Count I alleged that Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), did not provide an adequate response to Korte &
Wortman’s request under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(A). It was inadequate
because: “Defendant did respond to the RFI, however, Defendant’s response was
insufficient in that it failed to include a phone number for the investor of the
subject loan.” Comp. ¶ 17. Count I sought actual damages and attorney’s fees.
Count II alleged that Ocwen “has shown a pattern of disregard to the requirement
imposed . . . by the Federal Reserve Regulation X,” Comp. ¶ 35, and sought
statutory damages and attorney’s fees.
Ocwen removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, and moved to dismiss it for failure to state a claim for relief.
Mejia did not respond to Ocwen’s motion as required by the Court’s local rules, so
the Court took the motion under advisement without the benefit of any explanation
from Mejia’s counsel as to why Ocwen’s motion should not be granted. In a
comprehensive through-going order, the Court granted Ocwen’s motion to dismiss.
Mejia appeals, arguing that the District Court erred in holding that Ocwen,
as servicer, was not obligated to provide a phone number for the owner of the loan.
We find no merit in the argument, and accordingly affirm for the reasons stated in
the District Court’s dispositive order. Because we anticipate that Mejia’s claims
2
Case: 16-16353
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
Page: 3 of 10
Case: 16-16353
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
Page: 4 of 10
Case: 16-16353
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
Page: 5 of 10
Case: 16-16353
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
Page: 6 of 10
Case: 16-16353
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
Page: 7 of 10
Case: 16-16353
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
Page: 8 of 10
Case: 16-16353
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
Page: 9 of 10
Case: 16-16353
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
Page: 10 of 10
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
