Thomason v. One West Bank, FSB, Indy Mac Bank (MAG+)

Filing 113

JUDGMENT: it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) Plf's 111 objections are overruled, except to the extent set forth in the opinion entered today; (2) Dfts' 109 & 110 objections are overruled with leave to r enew the arguments at the summary-judgment stage; (3) The US Magistrate Judge's 108 recommendation is adopted, with the exception set forth in the opinion entered today; (4) Dfts' 93 , 94 , and 99 motions to dismiss are granted in par t, without prejudice, and denied in part, as further set out in order; (5) Plf's 98 motion for leave to amend the complaint is denied without prejudice; (6) Dft Eva Bank's 104 motion to strike affidavit is granted to the extent it reque sts the court disregard the 102 -1 affidavit attached to plf's 102 response brief; (7) Plf's 105 motion for leave to file an affidavit and motion for summary judgment are denied without prejudice; DIRECTING the clerk to enter this docu ment on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP; This case is not closed, and is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/22/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION STEVEN THOMASON, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. ONE WEST BANK, FSB, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv604-MHT (WO) JUDGMENT In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered today, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) Plaintiff's overruled, except objections to the (doc. extent set no. 111) forth in are the opinion entered today. (2) Defendants’ objections (doc. nos. 109 & 110) are overruled with leave to renew the arguments at the summary-judgment stage. (3) The recommendation United (doc. States no. 108) Magistrate is adopted, Judge's with the exception set forth in the opinion entered today. (4) Defendants' motions to dismiss (doc. nos. 93, 94, & 99) are granted in part, without prejudice, and denied in part, as follows: (a) The motions to dismiss are denied as to plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C § 2601. (b) The motions to dismiss are granted as to plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a); the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 and 18 U.S.C. § 1341; and the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 1975 Ala. Code §§ 8–19–1 et seq. (c) The motions to dismiss are denied as to plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1982. (d) The motions to dismiss are granted as to plaintiff’s claims under the 2 Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3605, with respect to the loan origination proceedings. (e) plaintiff’s The motions to dismiss are denied as to claims under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3605, with respect to any loan modification proceedings occurring after March 3, 2013. (5) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint (doc. no. 98) is denied without prejudice. (6) Defendant Eva Bank’s motion to strike affidavit (doc. no. 104) is granted to the extent it requests the court disregard the affidavit (doc. no. 102-1) attached to plaintiff’s response brief (doc. no. 102). (7) Plaintiff’s affidavit and motion motion for for summary leave to judgment file an (doc. no. 105) are denied without prejudice. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil pursuant to Rule 58 of docket the as a Federal final Rules judgment of Civil Procedure. This case is not closed, and is referred back to 3 the magistrate judge for further proceedings. DONE, this the 22nd day of March, 2017. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?