IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Civil Action
No. 2:07-cv-04328-JG
Amended Complaint
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Douglas
A. & Andrea M. Jones
111 E. Washington Street
Fleetwood, PA 19522
individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated plaintiffs.
V.
Defendants:
WABN Amro Mortgage Group,
Inc;
Chase Home Mortgage Corporation;
Citimortgage, Inc.;
Citicorp Home Mortgage Services, Inc.;
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.;
Fifth Third Mortgage Company;
Florida Capital Bank Mortgages;
GMAC Mortgage Corporation;
GMAC Mortgage Asset Management, Inc.;
GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc.;
HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA);
Indymac Financial Services Corp;
Moorequity Inc.;
National City Mortgage Inc.;
NBank, NA;
Provident Funding Group, Inc.;
Saxon Home Mortgage;
Saxon Mortgage, Inc.;
Sovereign Bank;
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.;
U.S. Bank N.A.;
Wachovia Mortgage Corporation;
Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc.;
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; and,
John Doe Mortgage Companies
In Jones Case, the Court Denied Plaintiffs’
Procedural Motion to Transfer to Bankruptcy Court; Case Was Not “Thrown
Out” and the Court Made No Ruling on Class Certification
Plaintiffs filed a motion in the Jones case to transfer the
entire case to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania as a related case to In re: Image Masters, Inc.
et. al, Case. No. 07-21587. Among other things, Plaintiffs sought
to add additional Defendants Image Masters, Inc. and other
Bankrupt entities that are part of the consolidated Image Masters
bankruptcy case. Following nearly three hours of argument, Judge
Giles denied the motion from the bench. The transfer was opposed by
the Defendant lenders who argued that the case was not sufficiently
related to the Image Masters bankruptcy proceedings. The Court
may issue a reasoned decision to explain its ruling that there is no
“related to” jurisdiction.
This motion was procedural and does not touch on the merits of the case.
Moreover, depending on further developments, the Court may determine,
in response to a renewed motion or on its own, that transfer to the
Bankruptcy Court is warranted by further developments in the case. In
addition, Plaintiffs will consider an alternative strategy of seeking
relief from the “automatic stay” provisions in the Image
Master bankruptcy to add parties to the Jones case in
the United States District Court.
In addition, the Court commented on various aspects of the case, including
expressing concern about procedural hurdles relating to federal joinder
rules and class action certification. Judge Giles made clear that he
had not pre-judged these issues, but from the pleadings he has seen
he made statements regarding the possibility that individual actions
may be superior. Plaintiffs counsel addressed those concerns and, among
other things, noted that Plaintiffs had not yet requested class certification
and not yet even filed any brief or evidence in support of class certification.
Finally, the Court suggested that the parties may want to consider whether
the current schedule for the Preliminary Injunction hearing on January
18th should be reconsidered. Plaintiffs are discussing potential scheduling
issues with the Defendants and will advise the Court of any agreed-upon
changes in the schedule.
Update in Jones Case
On December 20th, the following occurred:
* the motion for preliminary injunction was withdrawn by Plaintiffs
- - accordingly we do not expect that there will be a hearing before
Judge Giles in Philadelphia on January 18, 2008;
* all Plaintiffs other than the Joneses voluntarily dismissed their
claims and are no longer parties in this case;
* we expect that further action will be undertaken soon to protect and
prosecute homeowners' rights.
* Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to Defendants' motion
to dismiss
We are addressing various hurdles and procedural issues that
had been raised in the case and anticipate further legal action as necessary
and appropriate to pursue justice for affected homeowners and protect
their rights.
Downloads
Amended Complaint
Stipluations
Rule to Show Cause
Motion for Preliminary
Injunction
Memorandum in Support of Motion
for Preliminary Injunction
Hearing Order
Stipulation Extension
Confidentiality Order
Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss
BANKING DEPARTMENT REACHES AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
MORTGAGE RELIEF TO OPFM BORROWERS
Rule To Show Cause 02/08/2008
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Letter to Senator
Casey
|
