Tag Archives: misrepresentation

United States District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Intentional Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims

Posted on by

The court in Hoffman v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155092, 2013 WL 5797623 (D. Nev. Oct. 28, 2013) dismissed both of the plaintiff’s intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Plaintiffs asserted two claims in their complaint: intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. In regards to the first claim, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claim for the misrepresentation failed because it was not pled with specificity as required by Rule 9(b). Nowhere in the complaint did plaintiffs allege who made the fraudulent statements, when the statements were made, or where they were made.

Plaintiffs failed to allege the specific content of the fraudulent statements—their allegations include only broad generalizations. Plaintiffs also failed to identify precisely what reliance they placed on the “misrepresentations” such that plaintiffs are entitled to damages or equitable relief.

Lastly, the court found that the plaintiffs also nakedly assert a claim for “negligent misrepresentation,” and that the claim suffered from the same deficiencies as the first claim.

United States District Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s TILA, RESPA, and GLBA Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Hopkins v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155547, 2013 WL 5888086 (D. Md. Oct. 30, 2013) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s TILA, RESPA, and GLBA claims.

Plaintiff referenced three statutes in their complaint: TILA, RESPA, and GLBA. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated TILA by “withholding certain disclosures and documentation.” Plaintiff also claimed that defendant violated RESPA by making “loan servicing errors.” Plaintiff, however, did not state which provisions of these statutes defendant violated. With regard to the GLBA, Plaintiff alleged neither how defendant violated the statute, nor which provision defendant violated.

Accordingly, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and the complaint did not include any of the basic information necessary to be properly considered a complaint. Defendant also claimed that plaintiff’s complaint contained none of the information required by Rule 8(a). Specifically, with regard to Rule 8(a)(2)‘s requirement of “a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.”

The defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s complaint was nothing more than an unadorned collection of vague and conclusory statements, in which the plaintiff failed to plead any specific facts supporting the claim that Green Tree somehow violated the law. Additionally, defendant argued that plaintiff failed to identify a single provision of RESPA and TILA that Green Tree allegedly violated. The court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.

United States District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Wrongful Foreclosure, Wrongful Ejectment, and Quiet Title Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Billete v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155544, 2013 WL 5840105 (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2013) dismissed with prejudice the portions of plaintiff’s actions, including: Count I (wrongful foreclosure, wrongful ejectment, and quiet title), Count III (fraud), and Count V (unfair and deceptive acts and practices) based upon the closure of Deutsche Bank’s trust, to which MERS purportedly assigned plaintiffs’ loan, and any other alleged violations of the Trust’s Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”).

The court granted in part and denied in part Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Specifically, the defendant’s motion was denied as to the portions of Amended Counts I, III, and V based on the assertion that the assignment was invalid because HCL was dissolved prior to the assignment.

Further, the defendant’s motion regarding the portions of the plaintiffs’ claims that alleged that the foreclosure was invalid because Deutsche Bank failed to comply with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5 were denied without prejudice.

California Court Determines Plaintiff’s Claims are Barred by Res Judicata

Posted on by

The court in deciding Maxwell v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155930, 2013 WL 5882457 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2013) concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata and therefore granted [with prejudice] the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants Deutsche, OneWest, and MERS. Plaintiff alleged various violations of California and federal consumer protection statutes. The plaintiff asserted a claim for an invalid transfer of a trust deed, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The defendants moved to dismiss the proceedings, arguing that the claims were barred by res judicata. The court, after considering the evidence presented, concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Michigan Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s State Law Based Claims of Wrongful Foreclosure

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division after considering the arguments in Ashford v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156159, 2013 WL 5913411 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2013), dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, with prejudice.

Plaintiff alleged claims against Defendant BANA for breach of contract (Count I), wrongful foreclosure/declaratory judgment (Count II), wrongful foreclosure (Count III), and violation of the Michigan Mortgage Brokers, Servicers, and Lenders Licensing Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1651 et seq. (Count IV). Defendant BANA filed the instant Motion.

Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because there is no valid basis to overturn the sale of the Property after the redemption period terminated. The Court agreed and found the rest of the plaintiff’s claims lacking or without merit.

Moody Misrepresentation

Posted on by

Judge Daniels (SDNY) granted Moody’s motion for summary judgment in In re Moody’s Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 07 Civ. 8375 (Aug. 23, 2013). This is a big win for Moody’s, but I did find the following passage striking in its tone:

Moody’s own emphasis on the importance of its independence weakens its case for summary judgment on the issue of materiality. Moody’s 2005 and 2006 Annual Reports, as well as their Forms 10-K from the same timeframe, are replete with pronouncements of Moody’s independence and integrity.  For example, Moody’s stated in its 2005 Annual Report that it “is committed to reinforcing among all relevant stakeholders a sense of trust in the accuracy, independence and reliability of Moody’s products and services . . ..’ Likewise, in its Code of Professional Conduct dated June 2005, Moody’s stated that it “will use care and professional judgment to maintain both the substance and appearance of independence and integrity”, and that the ratings it issues “will not be affected by the existence of, or potential for, a business relationship between Moody’s (or its affiliates) and the Issuer (or its affiliates) or any other party . . ..” In light of the great lengths to which Moody’s has gone to tout its independence and integrity, it is inconsistent for Moody’s to simultaneously argue that a reasonable investor would not find such statements to be material. Moody’s thus fails to demonstrate that no reasonable jury could find the alleged misrepresentation at issue to be material. (13, citations omitted)

We are starting to see judges hold rating agencies to the standards they set for themselves (here, for example), although we have not yet seen a court hold one of them liable for violating them.  That may yet come as more of these cases wend their way through the courts.

Misrepresentation and Wholesale Misrepresentation

Posted on by

Federal Judge Lungstrum (D. Kan.) issued a Memorandum and Order in National Credit Union Administrative Board v. RBS Securities, Inc. et al., No. 11-2340 (Sept. 12, 2013).  The Board, as conservator and liquidating agent of the U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, alleged that the defendants made “untrue statements or omissions of material facts relating to” a number of RMBS. The main allegation is that  “the originators for the loans underlying the [RMBS] certificates systematically abandoned underwriting guidelines, and that the certificates’ offering documents failed to disclose that fact or misrepresented that guidelines were followed.” (3) The court found that

plaintiff’s forensic analysis, based on the particular loans underlying the six dismissed offerings, support a plausible claim of misrepresentations involving the LTV and owner-occupancy ratios. Not only are those alleged misrepresentations independently actionable, they provide a connection to the particular certificates at issue and thus support a plausible claim based on the abandonment of underwriting guidelines.  That is true for claims based on these six offerings, even without originator-specific allegations.  Accordingly, the Court denies the motion by RBS and Wachovia to dismiss certain claims on this basis. (7)

Courts have been increasingly willing to draw a distinction between run of the mill misrepresentation and systemic misrepresentation (see here and here for instance).  This will have a big impact on how reps and warranties are drafted going forward as well as, obviously, the scope of theories of liability for breach of contract in the context of securities offerings.