Bainbridge et al v. U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustree for the C-BASS Mortgage Loan Trust Asset-Back Certificates, Series 2007-CB6 et al
Filing
37
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry). Defendant motion to dismiss, (Doc. 21) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants motion to dismiss, (Doc. 23) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' respective mot ions to dismiss, (Docs. 21, 23) are DENIED to the extent they seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims. Defendants must file their respective answers to the amended complaint, (Doc. 13), within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order. (PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS).Signed by Honorable William J. Nealon on 3/30/17. (lh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTOPHER BAINBRIDGE, ET :
AL.,
:
Plaintiffs
:
:
v.
:
:
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, :
ET AL.,
:
Defendants
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-0411
(Judge Nealon)
ORDER
AND NOW, THIS 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017, upon consideration of
the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Defendant Udren Law Offices, P.C.’s (“Udren”) motion to dismiss,
(Doc. 21), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
2.
Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”) and U.S. Bank,
N.A. as Trustee for the C-BASS Mortgage Loan Trust Asset-Back
Certificates, Series 2007-CB6’s (“U.S. Bank”) motion to dismiss,
(Doc. 23), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3.
Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss, (Docs. 21, 23), are
GRANTED to the extent they seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), claims
concerning Plaintiffs’ underlying state foreclosure action, see (Doc.
14, pp. 5-6). Plaintiffs’ remaining FDCPA claims concerning their
bankruptcy action, see (Doc. 14, p. 5), will proceed.
4.
Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claims concerning their underlying state
foreclosure action, see (Doc. 14, pp. 5-6), are DISMISSED with
prejudice because those claims are barred by the FDCPA’s statute of
limitations and leave to amend those claims would be futile.
5.
Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss, (Docs. 21, 23), are
DENIED to the extent they seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims under
42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8351, et seq., see (Doc. 14, p. 6).
6.
Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss, (Docs. 21, 23), are
GRANTED to the extent they seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims
brought under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq. (“UTPCPL”), see (Doc. 14,
pp. 6-8).
7.
Plaintiffs’ claims brought under the UTPCPL, see (Doc. 14, pp. 6-8),
are DISMISSED with prejudice because leave to amend these
claims would be futile.
8.
To the extent that Udren seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim filed
pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73
PA. CON. STAT. ANN. § 2270.1 et seq., (“FCEUA”), see (Doc. 22, p.
13), Udren’s motion to dismiss will be DISMISSED as MOOT
because Plaintiffs have withdrawn their FCEUA claim. See (Doc. 14,
pp. 6-8); (Doc. 27-1, p. 13).
9.
Defendants must file their respective answers to the amended
complaint, (Doc. 14), within fourteen (14) days from the date of this
Memorandum and Order.
/s/ William J. Nealon
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?