Clayborn v. Walter Investment Management Corp, Ditech

Filing 47

MOTION by Plaintiff Terry D. Clayborn for judgment Motion Default Judgement (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Motion)(Clayborn, Terry)

Case: 1:18-cv-03452 Page: 1
Terry D. Clayborn

Case: 1:18-CV-03452

Plaintiff

Hon: Steven C. Seeger

V
Walter Investment Management, Ditech
Financial, LLC
Defendant

Motion For DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Motion: To Walter Investment Management Corporation
Plaintiff, commenced this civil action pursuant to: (1) Sections 1054 and 1055 of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of2010 ("CFPA"), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5564, and Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, (815 ILCS 505/) Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, violation of Federal Government Public Law 110-343) [12U.S.C.5201 et seq.}
and 12 U.S. Code § 5219a. Home Affordable Modification Program guidelines and Public Law
110-343) [12U.S.C.5201 et seq.]
This court may enter default judgment when a defendant fails to respond to a complaint and
court orders and fails to participate in the litigation or cooperate in good faith with the plaintiff.
Tara Prods., Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets, Inc., 449 F. App'x 908, 910-12 (11th Cir. 2011); Eagle
Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009);
Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987). Default judgment is appropriate here
against Corporate Defendants because they have failed to file answers or otherwise appear,
participate in Mandatory Discovery Project and defend the claims brought against them.
Corporate Defendants' liability is well-pled in the Complaint, and Corporate Defendants have
failed to participate in the litigation in good faith. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), upon
application by Plaintiffs, the Court now enters a default judgment against Corporate Defendants
for violations of Regulations. (735 ILCS 5/2-1301) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-1301)

Case: 1:18-cv-03452 Page: 2

Sec. 2-1301. Judgments - Default - Confession. (a) The court shall determine the rights of the
parties and grant to any party any affirmative relief to which the party may be entitled on the
pleadings and proofs. Judgments shall be in the form required by the nature of the case and by
the recovery or relief awarded.
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and over Corporate Defendants
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 5565(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 1367. 2. Corporate
Defendants have been properly served with the Summons and Complaint. 4. Corporate
Defendants have failed to answer or otherwise defend this action. 5. The Complaint states a
claim upon which relief can be granted. 6. Because of Corporate Defendants' default, Corporate
Defendants are deemed to have admitted the well-pled facts of the complaint and the allegations
are taken as true. Eagle Hosp., 515 F.2d at 1307; Buchanan, 820 F.2d at 361.
Plaintiff is entitled to an Order imposing permanent injunctive relief; requiring Corporate
Defendants to make restitution of $1,900,000 and requiring Corporate Defendants to pay civil
money penalties. This action and the relief awarded herein are in addition to, and not in lieu of,
other remedies as may be provided by law, including both civil and criminal remedies.
Default Amount: $1,900,000.
Each corporation existed "to participate in the same mortgage relief operation," with roles
ranging from giving "consumers the impression of a legitimate law firm" to "funnel[ing] revenue
to non-attorneys," to operating the "telemarketing boiler rooms that convince[ d) consumers to
pay fees. Corporate Defendants commingled finances; paid each other's rents; shared a common
address; shared employees; and operated under the common control of the same principals:
Harper, Willcox, and Hoffman. Corporate Defendants "all exist[ ed] for the single purpose of

Case: 1:18-cv-03452 Page: 3

selling consumers mortgage assistance relief services and splitting the profits among the
individual defendants. None of the companies had any other business purpose.
Corporate Defendants operated as a common enterprise in effectuating the alleged mortgage
relief scheme, and are therefore jointly and severally liable for all of the violations alleged in the
complaint. Where one or more corporate entities operate in a common enterprise, each may be
held liable for the deceptive acts and practices of the other. Sunshine Art Studios, Inc. v. FTC,
481 F.2d 1171, 1175 (1st Cir.l973); FTC v. Wolf, No. 94-8119-CIV -FERGUSON, 1996 WL
812940, *7-8 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 1996); Commodity Futures Trading Comm 'n. v. Int'l Berkshire
Grp. Holdings, No. 05-61588-CIV-ALTONAGA, 2006 WL 3716390, *7 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 3,
2006). 15. The Court, in its discretion, enters injunctive and monetary relief, without holding an
evidentiary hearing. Tara Prods., Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets, Inc., 449 F. App'x 908, 911-12
(11th Cir. 2011 ).
Requesting Default Judgement in the amount of : $1,900,000.
Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Terry D. Clayborn, P.O. Box 55, Chicago Heights, IL. 60412 (708466-9008). Email: [e-mail]