Cornejo et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 97

ORDER DENYING Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/28/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK CORNEJO, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-000993 - JLT
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

16
17

The defendants contend the plaintiffs failed to meet her burden of proof and, according to Rule

18

50, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

19

I.

20

Legal Standards Governing Motions for Judgment
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the Court finds that

21

“a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for that party.” Fed. R.

22

Civ. P. 50(a). In that event, the Court may resolve the issue against the party and grant judgment in

23

favor of the moving party. Id.

24

At the close of evidence, the defendants moved the Court for judgment as a matter of law. The

25

defendants argued that there was insufficient evidence the application for the modification of the

26

mortgage was not complete, that the application was not timely and that there was no evidence the

27

defendants acted willfully, recklessly and intentionally. The Court disagrees.

28

The plaintiffs presented evidence that they provided the additional information requested by
1

1

Ocwen at approximately 10:30 a.m. (PST) on April 28, 2015. They admitted the fax confirmation sheet

2

supporting this claim and Ocwen’s notes indicate the documents were received, though not at the time

3

the plaintiffs claim to have sent them. In addition, the plaintiffs introduced the letter from Ocwen sent

4

to them a few days after the home was sold at foreclosure, confirming that Ocwen was offering them a

5

loan modification. Thus, though Ocwen did not confirm on April 28, 2016 that the application was

6

complete, a reasonable jury would have a sufficient legal basis to conclude that because Ocwen did not

7

require anything more from the plaintiffs after the April 28, 2015 and determined that the loan

8

modification would be offered within days after the foreclosure sale, that the Cornejos provided a

9

complete application.

10

In addition, as discussed above, the plaintiffs contended they submitted the complete application

11

about 24 hours before the foreclosure sale. The Court is aware that Ocwen’s evidence indicated that the

12

complete application was required to be provided by midnight on April 27, 2015 to be timely because

13

Ocwen needed at least 24-hours before the foreclosure sale to confirm that the application was

14

complete. Despite this, the documents provided to the plaintiffs provided ambiguous information as to

15

when the documents had to be received because it referred to a deadline by midnight on the business

16

day before the foreclosure sale. The Court concludes that, while the evidence on this point was not

17

strong, a reasonable jury, if it relied on the plaintiff’s version of the evidence, would have a legally

18

sufficient evidentiary basis for finding the plaintiffs’ application was made timely.

19

Finally, again, the plaintiffs presented evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that

20

Ocwen received a complete application on April 28, 2015 at around 10:30 a.m. (PST). This was nearly

21

24 hours before the foreclosure sale and the evidence showed that Ocwen was able to delay the prior

22

foreclosure sale date with only seven hours’ notice. In addition, the plaintiffs introduced e-mail

23

communications to the foreclosure company in which Ocwen affirmed in the hours before the sale that

24

the sale was “good to go,” despite Ocwen having received a complete and timely application. When put

25

together and if believed, a reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to determine

26

Ocwen acted intentionally, willfully and recklessly when completing the sale.

27
28

Thus, though this evidence may be insufficient to convince many, the Court cannot conclude
that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis upon which to find in favor
2

1
2

of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the Court must ORDER:
1.

Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 is DENIED.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 28, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3