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

Filing 624

ORDER denying 483 Motion to Certify Class; adopting 595 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 12/3/2013. (sps)

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
DONETTA W. AMBROSE, United States Senior District Judge.
This action was removed to this Court on July 14, 2008. The case was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell for pretrial proceedings in accordance with
Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule of Court 72.C and 72.D. Because
the facts and applicable law are well known by the parties, the Court will not restate it here.
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on December 2, 2012 seeking certification
of the following class:
[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:
1

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 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.
Sec. Am. Compl. [ECF No. 109] at ¶ 2. A class certification hearing was held on March 6, 2013.
See 3/6/2013 Minute Entry [ECF No. 566].
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed July 18, 2013 recommended
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification be denied. See Rep. and Rec. [ECF No. 595].
Service of the Report and Recommendation was made on all parties. The parties were informed
that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local
Rule of Court 72.D.2, the parties had fourteen (14) days, until August 5, 2013 to file any
objections. After a series of extensions of time to file such objections and responses, Plaintiff
filed objections on September 3, 2013 [ECF No. 602], Defendant filed a Response on November
1, 2013 [ECF No. 617], and Plaintiff filed a Reply on November 26, 2013 [ECF No. 623].
Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation for the following reasons: (1)
Plaintiff was not permitted an adequate opportunity to conduct class discovery; (2) it was error
for the Court to not permit her to limit the class; and (3) the proposed limited class proposed by
Plaintiff should be certified.
Primarily, Plaintiff makes no attempt in her lengthy objections to object to the Report and
Recommendation denying the class outlined supra, which is the subject matter of the present
2

motion and Report and Recommendation. Moreover, whether the proposed limited class is
proper for class certification is not properly before this Court and will not be addressed.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s objections concerning the alleged lack of discovery and denial of
a limited class are not properly the subject matter of objections to a motion for class certification,
and all objections are overruled.1 Plaintiff’s complaints to the alleged lack of discovery and
proposal of a limited class have been addressed by the Magistrate Judge and this Court ad
nauseam and this Court will not rehash Plaintiff’s attempt to regurgitate her complaints here. For
these reasons, all of Plaintiff’s objections are overruled as not contrary to law or an abuse of
discretion.
Accordingly, after a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together
with the Report and Recommendation and pleadings thereto, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 3rd day of December, 2013,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 483]
is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Robert C. Mitchell is hereby adopted as the Opinion of the District Court.
By the Court,
/s/Donetta W. Ambrose
The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge

1

In addition, the Court notes that Counsel for Plaintiff affirmatively asserted that he did not intend to
proceed before the special master and was given the opportunity to file an amended class certification brief but
failed to do so. See Memo. Order [ECF No. 537] at 5 (“At the September 24, 2012 status conference, Glover
rejected the opportunity to proceed before the special master and to file an amended brief on her class certification
motion.”).

3