Tucker v. U.S. Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 14

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. After hearing, this Court ALLOWS Defendants motion to dissolve the ex parte injunction issued by the Massachusetts Superior Court on two grounds. First, Defendant did not receive reasonable notice of t he state court preliminary injunction hearing. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party.). The evidence reflects that Plaintiffs counsel notified counsel for the loan services of the hearing via email less than 24 hours before the hearing was scheduled. Defendant, who had not yet been served, did not have a meaningful opportunity to appear and oppose the motion for a preliminary injunction. Second, the Superior Court relied o n the incorrect fact that U.S. Bank did not hold both the mortgage and the underlying mortgage note. Where an entity holds the mortgage through a valid written assignment and is the note holder, that entity has the legal authority to foreclose on the property. See U.S. Bank Natl. Ass'n v. Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d 40, 51 (Mass. 2011). U.S. Bank was both the assignee of the mortgage and the holder of the note. Plaintiff does not dispute that the factual basis for the state court injunction was incorrect. Although the plaintiff raises other arguments, they are unpersuasive in demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits for the reasons stated in open court. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ___________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) U.S BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR ) CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, ) INC., 2006-HE3, ASSET BACKED ) PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES ) 2006-HE3, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ) and SERVICELINK FIELD SERVICES ) ) Defendants. ) ) ___________________________________) JACQUELINE TUCKER, Civil Action No. 17-11909-PBS ORDER November 20, 2017 Saris, C.J. After hearing, this Court ALLOWS Defendant’s motion to dissolve the ex parte injunction issued by the Massachusetts Superior Court on two grounds. First, Defendant did not receive reasonable notice of the state court preliminary injunction hearing. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(“No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party.”). The evidence reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel notified counsel for the loan services of the hearing via email less than 24 hours before the hearing was scheduled. Defendant, who had not yet been served, did not have a meaningful opportunity to appear and oppose the motion for a preliminary injunction. Second, the Superior Court relied on the incorrect fact that U.S. Bank did not hold both the mortgage and the underlying mortgage note. Where an entity holds the mortgage through a valid written assignment and is the note holder, that entity has the legal authority to foreclose on the property. See U.S. Bank Nat’l. Ass'n v. Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d 40, 51 (Mass. 2011). U.S. Bank was both the assignee of the mortgage and the holder of the note. Plaintiff does not dispute that the factual basis for the state court injunction was incorrect. Although the plaintiff raises other arguments, they are unpersuasive in demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits for the reasons stated in open court. /s/ PATTI B. SARIS Patti B. Saris Chief United States District 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?