Simpson v. Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, defendants' motion to dismiss 15 is denied on mootness grounds. This Court will leave it to defense counsel to choose whether a new motion to dismiss or an answer to the First Amended Compliant is the better course, and counsel are granted until August 22, 2017 to file Loan Servicing's responsive pleading. Further proceedings in the case will be ordered when that responsive pleading has been filed. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/1/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

GIDGET SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.
and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17 C 3480

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On July 1, 2017 codefendants Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc. ("Mortgage Servicing")
and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("Loan Servicing") filed a motion and supporting
memorandum (the "Memorandum," Dkt. No. 18), seeking to dismiss the four-count Complaint
brought against them by Gidget Simpson ("Simpson") predicated on telephone calls assertedly
barred by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. Instead of
responding to that motion, Simpson's counsel filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC," Dkt.
No. 21) on July 19, targeting only Loan Servicing as a defendant. This memorandum order is
prompted by the FAC, both because it calls for the denial of the initial motion on mootness
grounds and because it seems appropriate to identify some respects in which the FAC's
allegations either do or do not appear to address issues raised by that initial motion.
First, of course, the elimination of Mortgage Servicing as a defendant in the FAC plainly
eliminates this objection summarized at page 2 of the Memorandum:
Fifth, Plaintiff generically claims that "Defendants" engaged in the alleged
unlawful conduct without indicating which Defendant is the responsible party.

Plaintiff's "group pleading" strategy is insufficient under Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Hence the supporting argument in Section II.A of the Memorandum at its pages 9 and 10 is also
rendered irrelevant.
By contrast, Sections I.A and B of the Memorandum at its pages 4 through 9, asserting
the claimed inapplicability of a statute of limitations defense based on American Pipe & Constr.
Co. v. State of Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) and Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345
(1983), may or may not remain applicable under the FAC. This Court will leave it to defense
counsel to choose whether a new motion to dismiss or an answer to the FAC is the better course,
and counsel are granted until August 22, 2017 to file Loan Servicing's responsive pleading.
Further proceedings in the case will be ordered when that responsive pleading has been filed.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: August 1, 2017

-2-