GLOVER v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A. et al

Filing 537

ORDER denying 495 Motion to Certify Limited Class and granting 532 Motion for Hearing filed by MARY E. GLOVER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 01/02/2013. (ajt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARY E. GLOVER,
individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated
former and current
homeowners in Pennsylvania,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
MARK J. UDREN, UDREN LAW
OFFICES, P.C., WELLS FARGO
HOME MORTGAGE, GOLDMAN SACHS
MORTGAGE COMPANY
Defendants.

Civil No. 08-990

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The protracted history of this litigation (to date,
the docket entries number 534) has previously been chronicled by
this Court and the District judge.

Accordingly, only a brief

summary is required to address the recently-filed motions that
are the subjects of this memorandum order.
Numerous discovery disputes led to the appointment of a
special

master

opposed

the

to

special

handle
master

discovery.
appointment,

Plaintiff

vehemently

including

filing

a

Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.
After the mandamus petition was denied, on September
24,

2012,

we

conducted

a

Status

Conference

at

which

time

Glover’s counsel stated that he was not going to proceed before
1

the Special Master.

The Minute Entry docketed at the conclusion

of the conference noted that no motions for discovery or amended
briefs would be re-filed (Doc. # 469).
On October 2, 2012, Glover filed a Motion for Class
Certification, defining the class as follows:
[A]ll
former
or
current
homeowners
who
obtained residential financing from WaMu Bank
and/or WaMu Home Loans, secured by a first
mortgage on property located within the
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania
(sometimes
referred to as “Homeowners”). This class
includes Homeowners who made monthly payments
to WaMu Bank, Washington Mutual Home Loans,
or Defendant Wells Fargo on or after July 29,
2003 where:
a. A mortgagee/mortgagor relationship existed
between WaMu Bank and/or WaMu Mutual Home
Loans and the Homeowner; and
b. That relationship arose out of a first
mortgage on residential property located in
Pennsylvania; and
c. The Notes or Mortgages serviced by WaMu
Home Loans and/or WaMu Bank were thereafter
assigned to Defendant Wells Fargo; and
d. The mortgagor made one or more payments to
Wells Fargo for his or her loan.
(Doc. # 483).
However, on November 2, 2012, Glover filed a Motion to
Certify a Limited Class of Homeowners (Doc. # 495).
defines the limited class as consisting of:
[A]ll

former

or

current

2

homeowners

who

Glover

obtained financing1 secured by a fist mortgage
on property located within the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania . . . wherein foreclosure
charges, liens and/or collections were made
by Defendant, Wells Fargo (and/or by WaMu in
loans wherein servicing was later transferred
to Wells Fargo), including, but not limited
to homeowners that were named as defendants
in foreclosure actions filed by the Udren Law
Offices
. . . on behalf of [WaMu] and/or
Wells Fargo.
The class excludes a sub-class
of
Homeowners
wherein
no
demands
for
foreclosure fees and costs have been made in
the past six (6) years since the filing of
Ms. Glover’s state complaint.
This includes
a sub-class of homeowners where Goldman
purchased
the
notes
and
mortgages
or
otherwise acquired an interest in the notes
or mortgages.
(Doc. # 495).
Glover contends that these limited class allegations
can be proven by reference to public documents, obviating the
need for a special master.

The public documents are foreclosure

complaints filed in courts of common pleas in Pennsylvania that
Glover alleges demonstrate that Wells Fargo, through its counsel
and

former

uniformly

party
charged,

in

this

action,

attempted

to

Udren

Law

collect

Offices,

and/or

P.C.,

collected

unauthorized and/or illegal attorneys’ fees (Doc. # 524).
Glover

has

filed

additional

1

motions

related

In Glover’s reply brief, she informs that the
limited class definition was intended to read:
“[A]ll former or current homeowners who obtained
financing wherein the loan was originated by
Washington Mutual and secured by a fist mortgage
on property located within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.”

3

to

her

request to limit her class definition, including a motion to
stay ruling on the pending motion for class certification (Doc.
# 493), a motion to enforce our September 24, 2012 order (Doc. #
494),

a request for judicial notice (Doc. # 524), and a motion

for a class certification hearing (Doc. # 532).

We deferred

ruling on the motion to stay pending the completion of briefing
on the instant motion and denied the motion to enforce (Doc. #
519).
For their part, Wells Fargo and GSMC filed motions for
protective

orders

and

motions

to

quash

Plaintiff’s

(b)(6) notices of deposition (Doc. ## 514, 518).
11, 2012, it was
taking

the

ordered that Plaintiff

deposition

of

corporate

Rule

30

On December

was prohibited from

representatives

of

Wells

Fargo and GSMC and from serving any further discovery upon Wells
Fargo

and/or

GSMC

September 24, 2012.

for

the

reason

that

discovery

closed

on

We deferred ruling on whether Wells Fargo

should be compelled to respond to

Plaintiff’s Second

Set of

Requests for Admissions. (Doc. # 520, 521).
Wells Fargo opposes the motion to certify a limited
class on the grounds that it is improper, untimely, procedurally
flawed and that Glover has failed to meet the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

GSMC joins in Wells Fargo’s response and

submits the additional argument that the proposed limited class
definition does not include GSMC within its allegations.
4

The

Court

agrees

with

defendants

that

Glover

has

relinquished her right to re-characterize her class definition.
At the September 24, 2012 Status Conference, Glover rejected the
opportunities to proceed before the special master and to file
an amended brief on her class certification motion.

The filing

of this current motion contravenes both her representations at
the

conference

and

the

minute

entry

entered

after

the

The motion is further flawed by its untimeliness.

The

conference.

deadline for filing the motion for class certification was set
for

October

2,

2012.

The

public

documents

that

purportedly

support her revised class definition and of which she requests
the Court to take judicial notice were available at that time.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Certify a Limited
Class (Doc. # 495) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Ruling
the Motion for Class Certification, previously deferred, (Doc. #
493) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wells Fargo Motion for a
Protective Order concerning Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests
for

Admissions,

also

GRANTED at this time.

previously

deferred,

(Doc.

#

514)

is

There is a split of authority on whether

requests for admissions are discovery tools.
5

See generally, RLA

Marketing v. Inc. v. WHAM-O, Inc., Civil Action No. 04-3442,
2007 WL 766351, at *5 (D.N.J. March 7, 2007).

However, it is

clear that “the purpose of Requests for Admission is to expedite
the trial by establishing certain material facts as true, thus
reducing the number of issues for trial.”
University,

Civil

Action

No.

Duchesneau v. Cornell

08-4856,

2010

WL

4117753,

at

*2 (E.D.Pa. October 19, 2010) (internal citations and quotations
omitted).

Thus, Glover’s requests for admissions to Wells Fargo

are premature at this stage of the litigation.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

Court

will

take

judicial notice of the submitted foreclosure complaints solely
as to the fact of their existence and only to the extent that
they

could

be

relevant

to

Glover’s

Motion

for

Class

Certification.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Glover’s Motion for a Class
Certification Hearing (Doc. # 532) is GRANTED, the date and time
to be determined.
s/Robert C. Mitchell
Robert C. Mitchell
United States Magistrate Judge

6