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)

Download PDF
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?