King et al v. Homeward Residential Inc et al

Filing 56

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's Savoil and King's first amended class action complaint, 49 . Kings' motion to certify class and to appoint interim counsel, 39 and 45 , are also denied. Finally, the Kings' motion for relief, 55 , is denied. There is nothing to be tried in this Court and dismissal is appropriate. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 4/13/2015. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION SAVOIL KING and DOROTHY KING, for themselves and all Arkansas residents similarly situated v. PLAINTIFFS CASE NO: 3:14CV00183 BSM HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Based on the record and the representations made during the conference of March 13, 2015, plaintiffs Savoil and Dorothy King’s first amended class action complaint [Doc. No. 49] is dismissed and the Kings’ motions to certify class and to appoint interim counsel [Doc. Nos. 39 & 45] are denied. Finally, the Kings’ motion for relief [Doc. No. 55] is denied. The Kings acknowledge that their mortgage contract, which is assigned to a thirdparty REMIC trust, created Homeward’s right to purchase force-placed insurance. Compare Memorandum in Support of Motion, Doc. No. 55 (identifying a REMIC trust as the ultimate assignee of the Kings mortgage contract), with Class Action Complaint, ¶ 32, Doc. No. 2 (acknowledging defendants’ rights to force place insurance pursuant to the mortgage contract). Although there is no contract between the Kings and Homeward, the uncontested mortgage contract between the Kings and the REMIC trust precludes the Kings’ unjust enrichment claims against all defendants. See King v. Homeward Residential, Inc., No. 3:14CV00183 BSM, 2014 WL 6485665, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2014) (holding that the existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi-contract for claims arising out of the same subject matter, even against a third party). Therefore, there is nothing to be tried in this court and dismissal is appropriate. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of April 2015. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?