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)

Download PDF
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?