Robinson et al v. GE Money Bank et al

Filing 97

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the Robinson and Silvas Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental brief on the issues discussed above not to exceed five pages by April 25, 2016. Any Defendant may each respond, in a brief not to exceed five pages, by April 29 , 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court must file a copy of this Order in both the MDL case number and the one member case listed above. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 4/20/16. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS)
LITIGATION

10

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

11

Robinson v. GE Money Bank et al.,
CV 10-00630-PHX-JAT

12

) MDL 09-02119-PHX-JAT
) CV 10-630-PHX-JAT
)
)
ORDER Re SUPPLEMENTAL
)
BRIEFING
)
)
)
)
)

13

The Court will order supplemental briefing as specified below. Each brief may

14

not exceed FIVE (5) pages. This five pages includes the caption and the signature and is

15

inclusive of exhibits.

16
17

There are four ways to violate A.R.S. § 33-420(A); specifically, if a document
recorded in the chain of title is:

18

1) forged;

19

2) groundless;

20

3) contains a material misstatement or false claim; or

21

4) is otherwise invalid.

22

In its mandate reversing this Court’s dismissal of the consolidated amended

23

complaint, the Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs had stated a claim that “the

24

documents at issue are invalid because they are ‘robosigned (forged).’” In re Mortgage

25

Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 783 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).

-1-

Plaintiffs make the following argument in response to the summary judgment

1
2

motions:
Defendants’ attempt to characterize Plaintiff’s criticism of the
assignment as a claim that MERS has no interest in the note is misplaced.
The false statement is related to the transfer of the note itself together with
an interest in all monies to become due under the note. This is not the same
as saying that MERS was transferring an interest in the note itself.

3
4
5
6

Doc. 2011 at 6.

7
8

The Court has tried to decipher what Plaintiffs are arguing by this sentence and
how this relates to any allegation of forgery,1 but the Court has been unsuccessful.

9

Accordingly,

10
11
12

IT IS ORDERED that the Robinson and Silvas Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental
brief on the issues discussed above not to exceed five pages by April 25, 2016. Any
Defendant may each respond, in a brief not to exceed five pages, by April 29, 2016.

13
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court must file a copy of this
Order in both the MDL case number and the one member case listed above.

15

Dated this 20th day of April, 2016.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1

To the extent by “false statement”, which is not listed as a way to violate A.R.S. § 33420, Plaintiffs are arguing a theory other than “forgery” and assuming (for purposes of
this Order only) that such an argument would not be beyond the scope of the mandate,
Plaintiffs must prove materiality. Specifically, Plaintiffs mischaracterize this Court’s
prior order by stating that the Court held that Plaintiffs “do not need to prove materiality
related to the documents.” (Doc. 2011 at 9). This Court did not hold this, and indeed
could not, as the statute itself expressly requires that if the theory under which a plaintiff
is proceeding is a “misstatement” such misstatement must be “material”. A.R.S. § 33420. In other words, all this Court held was that if a plaintiff is proceeding on a theory
that a document is “forged”, the plaintiff does not have to prove materiality. (See Doc.
1912 at 4).

-2-