Carr v. Federal National Mortgage Association

Filing 8

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Motion to Amend Pleadings due by 7/1/2013. Discovery due by 8/30/2013. Dispositive Motions due by 10/20/2013. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/8/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
BEVERLY CARR,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-01295

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. JURISDICTION: The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
B. BRIEF THEORIES OF THE PARTIES:
1) BEVERLY CARR: Counter-Plaintiff contends the foreclosure of her home was
wrongful as she did not get proper notice and that she was in the process of seeking a
HAMP loan modification when the wrongful foreclosure took place which was caused by
FNMA’s servicing agent, Chase Bank, and in violation of the HAMP guidelines which is
negligence and the proximate cause of her damages.
2) FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (“FNMA”): FNMA
denies that the underlying foreclosure of Counter-Plaintiff’s property by FNMA’s agent
was wrongful or deficient in any way. Further, FNMA denies that Counter-Plaintiff has
standing to bring a claim against it related to the HAMP loan modification sought by
Counter-Plaintiff. Further, HAMP provides no private cause of action against any party,
including but not limited to FNMA. Based on the foregoing, FNMA believes all of
Counter-Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.
C. ISSUES RESOLVED: The parties are in agreement that jurisdiction and venue

is proper.
D. ISSUES STILL IN DISPUTE: Standing, liability and damages.
E. INITIAL DISCLOSURES: The parties shall exchange initial disclosures
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1) on or before April 1, 2013.
F. DISCOVERY: The parties shall complete all written discovery and depose all
fact witnesses on or before August 30, 2013. Discovery is not stayed during dispositive
motions, unless ordered by the court. Local Rule 33.01(b) is expanded to allow 40
interrogatories, including subparts. No motions concerning discovery are to be filed until
after the parties have conferred in good faith and, unable to resolve their differences, have
scheduled and participated in a conference telephone call with Judge Trauger or a
designated magistrate judge.
G. MOTIONS TO AMEND: The parties shall file all Motions to Amend on or
before July 1, 2013.
H. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS: The plaintiff shall identify and disclose all
expert witnesses and expert reports on or before August 1, 2013. The defendant shall
identify and disclose all expert witnesses and reports on or before September 1, 2013.
I. DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES: The parties shall depose all expert
witnesses on or before October 15, 2013.
J. JOINT MEDIATION REPORT: The parties shall file a joint mediation report
on or before September 5, 2013.
K. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS: The parties shall file all dispositive motions on or
before October 20, 2013. Responses to dispositive motions shall be filed within twenty
(20) days after the filing of the motion. Optional replies may be filed within ten (10) days
after the filing of the response. Briefs shall not exceed 20 pages. No motion for partial
summary judgment shall be filed except upon leave of court. Any party wishing to file
such a motion shall first file a separate motion that gives the justification for filing a
partial summary judgment motion in terms of overall economy of time and expense for
the parties, counsel and the court.
L. ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY. The parties have reached agreements on how to

conduct electronic discovery. Therefore, the default standard contained in Administrative
Order No. 174 need not apply to this case.
M. ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME: The parties expect the trial to last approximately
1-2 days. The trial date will be set following the Court’s ruling on any dispositive
motions.
It is so ORDERED.

________________________________
JUDGE

APPROVED FOR ENTRY:

s/ Lauren Paxton Roberts
John R. Wingo, #16955
Lauren Paxton Roberts, #25049
STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
SunTrust Plaza
401 Commerce Street, Suite 800
Nashville, Tennessee 37219-2376
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
s/ Christopher Kim Thompson -w/permission
Christopher Kim Thompson, #015895
THOMPSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
301 S. Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 218
Nashville, Tennessee 37211
[phone]
Attorney for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
983463:1:NASHVILLE