Latham v. Five Brothers Mortgage Company Services and Securing, Inc. et al
Filing
26
ORDER DISMISSING FIVE BROTHERS MORTGAGE COMPANY SERVICES AND SECURING INC. The first claim for relief in the first amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice and the remaining claims against Five Brothers Mortgage Company Services and Securing Inc. are dismissed without prejudice, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 10/20/15. (ktera)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01554-RPM
SUSAN LATHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIVE BROTHERS MORTGAGE COMPANY SERVICES AND SECURING INC.,
EDDIE BROWN,
TAMARA LEE FRAWLEY, and
COLORADO RESTORATIONS PLUS, LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER DISMISSING FIVE BROTHERS MORTGAGE COMPANY SERVICES AND
SECURING INC.
_____________________________________________________________________
Jurisdiction of this civil action is based on the claim against defendant Five
Brothers Mortgage Company Services and Securing Inc. for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(f) alleged in the first claim for relief in
the amended complaint. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss all claims under FRCP
12(b)(6). Pursuant to the hearing held today, the Court has determined that the facts
alleged do not constitute a violation of that section of the Act and therefore this court
lacks jurisdiction and cannot rule on the other claims for relief. Accordingly, the first
claim for relief in the first amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice and the
remaining claims against Five Brothers Mortgage Company Services and Securing Inc.
are dismissed without prejudice.
DATED:
October 20th, 2015
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
__________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior 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?