Bankers

The Greatest Theft: Ocwen PHH Mortgage Premeditated Long-Term Scheme to Steal Citizens Homes

Ocwen PHH’s egregious act was to use HAMP to POSTPONE foreclosures and add big balloon payments, NOT to help homeowners keep their homes.

Eichner v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

(4:19-cv-00524)

District Court, E.D. Texas

2019 CASE – REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 14, 2023
Sep 21, 2024

USA Motion to Intervene to apply res judicata, in part, to aid Ocwen aka Onity’s dismissal for fraudulent misconduct prior to 2017 as $15m (pennies) satisfied those claims.

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO INTERVENE IN PART AND TO DISMISS IN PART PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A)

The United States moves to intervene in part and dismiss in part pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) of the False Claims Act (FCA).

As discussed in more detail below, the United States has good cause to intervene in part and is entitled to dismissal of certain FCA claims in Relator’s Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 114] under United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023), and the applicable standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

Specifically, the United States seeks dismissal of the Amended Complaint to the extent that it asserts claims against any Defendant for violations of the FCA that accrued on or before February 17, 2017.

This dismissal will prevent Relators from continuing to pursue in this litigation conduct that was dismissed with prejudice to the United States by this Court’s May 19, 2017,

Order in United States ex rel. Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 4:12-CV-00543-ALM, Dkt. No. 593 (the “Fisher Dismissal Order,” attached hereto as Exhibit 1).

The United States’ dismissal is not intended to prevent Relators from pursuing in this action alleged FCA violations of any named Defendant that accrued after February 17, 2017.

BACKGROUND

I.            FCA Overview

The FCA, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, imposes civil penalties and treble damages on any person or entity that

(1) “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval,” in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A);

(2) “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim,” in violation of § 3729(a)(1)(B);

or

(3) “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, or knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government,” in violation of § 3729(a)(1)(G).

Civil suits to enforce the FCA may be brought either by the Attorney General, id. § 3730(a), or by a private person who files suit “for the person and for the United States Government” in the name of the United States, id. § 3730(b)(1).

The private person is known as a “relator” and the suit is called a qui tam action. Id.

After a relator has filed a qui tam action, “[t]he Attorney General diligently shall investigate” to determine whether there has, in fact, been an FCA violation. Id. § 3730(a).

Following an investigation, the United States may intervene in the qui tam action.

Where the United States intervenes, although the relator remains a nominal party, the Government assumes “the primary responsibility for prosecuting the action” and is not bound by any act of the relator. Id. § 3730(c)(1).

As the party with primary responsibility over the action, the United States may proceed with the action, settle the case over the relator’s objection, id. at § 3730(c)(2)(B), or dismiss the case over the relator’s objection, id. § 3730(c)(2)(A).

If the United States elects to decline to intervene, “the person bringing the action shall have the right to conduct the action.” Id. § 3730(b)(4).

But even after declining to intervene, the United States may still intervene “upon a showing of good cause,” id. § 3730(b)(3).

Regardless of whether the United States intervenes or declines to intervene in a qui tam action, the United States remains the “real party in interest,” United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 930 (2009), and is entitled to the damages and penalties recovered in the action minus a share that is paid to the qui tam relator, id. § 3730(d).

II.            Relators’ Qui Tam Allegations

Relators Jean-Marc Eichner and Brandon Loyd (“Relators”) filed this qui tam action on July 15, 2019.

This action concerns the Department of Treasury’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP), which provided monetary incentives to encourage mortgage servicers and investors to modify the terms of residential mortgages to reduce distressed borrowers’ monthly mortgage payments and help them avoid default, as well as an equivalent program established by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) that provided incentives for modifying FHA-insured mortgages (“FHA-HAMP”).

Generally, Relators allege that, from 2009 to 2019, Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, and Ocwen Financial Corporation (collectively, “Defendant Ocwen”), a residential mortgage servicer, violated the FCA

by falsely certifying compliance with myriad laws and regulations governing servicing in order to participate in, and receive incentive payments as part of, the HAMP and FHA-HAMP programs.

In addition, Relators allege that additional defendants — hundreds of identified residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts comprised of mortgages serviced by Ocwen, and the entities (U.S. Bank, N.A., Deutcsche Bank National Trust Company, The Bank of New York Mellon, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) that acted as trustees to those RMBS trusts (collectively, the “RMBS Trust Defendants”)

— are vicariously liable for Ocwen’s alleged FCA violations on the theory that Ocwen acted as the RMBS Trust Defendants’ agent when it serviced the loans.

III.            Procedural History of this Qui Tam Action

The United States declined to intervene in this qui tam on December 10, 2021. Dkt. No. 16.

Defendant Ocwen and the RMBS Trust Defendants moved to dismiss the Relators’ Complaint [Dkt. Nos. 40 and 48], and on February 13, 2023, this Court denied both motions in full. Dkt. No. 70.

All Defendants filed answers to the Relators’ original Complaint on March 6, 2023 [Dkt. Nos. 75-79]. On October 23, 2023, Relators moved for leave to amend their Complaint [Dkt. No. 113]. On June 10, 2024, the Court granted Relators’ motion [Dkt. No. 151],

making the Relators’ Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 114] the operative one.

Defendants filed answers to the Amended Complaint on June 24, 2024.

[Dkt. Nos. 152, 153, 154, 155, and 156].

On September 11, 2024, the RMBS Trust Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Based on Res Judicata for Conduct Through February 17, 2017. Dkt. No. 161.

IV.            The Litigation and Dismissal with Prejudice to the United States in United States ex rel. Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.

This Court has previously adjudicated and dismissed with prejudice to the United States the very same allegations Relators make here -— that Defendant Ocwen violated the FCA in connection with its participation in the HAMP and FHA-HAMP program from 2009 to February 17, 2017, in the earlier qui tam action,

United States ex rel. Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen, 4:12-CV-543-ALM (E.D. Tex.) (the “Fisher Case”), brought by different relators than the Relators here.

In the Fisher Case, the United States declined to intervene, and ultimately Defendant Ocwen and the Fisher relators reached a settlement (the “Fisher Settlement,” attached hereto as Exhibit 2) on February 17, 2017, resolving Ocwen’s potential FCA liability for $15 million.

The United States did not sign that settlement. Id.

But, in accordance with FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), which prohibits a relator from dismissing a qui tam action without the United States’ written consent, the United States filed with the Court its consent to dismissal.

See Fisher Case, Dkt. No. 584 (“Fisher U.S. Consent to Dismissal,” attached hereto as Exhibit 3).

In that filing, the United States consented to dismissal with prejudice to the United States of the “Covered Conduct,” as defined in the February 17, 2017, Fisher Settlement, stating that such dismissal was “in the interest of the United States.” Id.

Consistent with the United States’ filing, this Court “dismissed with prejudice as to the United States of America with respect to any claims asserted in this action [under the FCA] for the Covered Conduct, as that term is defined in the [Fisher Settlement]” on May 19, 2017.

See Fisher Dismissal Order.

The Fisher Case and this case involve identical allegations about Defendant Ocwen’s conduct from 2009 through February 17, 2017.

Relators here expand upon those allegations in two ways.

First, the RMBS Trust Defendants named here were not parties in the Fisher Case, which did not assert vicarious liability claims against any party based on Defendant Ocwen’s alleged FCA violations.

Second, this case alleges misconduct by Defendant Ocwen after February 17, 2017, and asserts vicarious liability claims against the RMBS Trust Defendants for those claims.

As discussed in more detail below, this Motion seeks the dismissal of Relators’ claims against all defendants — Defendant Ocwen and the RMBS Trust Defendants — for the time period (2009 through February 17, 2017) of the claims against Ocwen that this Court dismissed with prejudice to the United States in the Fisher Case.

ARGUMENT

I.            The United States Has Good Cause to Intervene for the Purpose of Dismissal

The Supreme Court held in Polansky that if the United States wishes to dismiss a qui tam suit pursuant to § 3730(c)(2)(A), it must first intervene and become a party. Polansky, 599 U.S. at 430-31.

The FCA provides that the United States may intervene in a qui tam suit after declining upon a showing of “good cause.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3).

In its decision that the Supreme Court affirmed “across the board,” the Third Circuit explained that “showing ‘good cause’ is neither a burdensome nor unfamiliar obligation,” but instead “a uniquely flexible and capacious concept, meaning simply a legally sufficient reason.”

United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 17 F.4th 376, 387 (3d Cir. 2021), aff’d 599 U.S. 419 (2023).

This flexible standard for evaluating “good cause” applies even at a later stage in a qui tam litigation.

Polansky, 17 F.4th at 381–82

(noting that “the parties and the District Court invested considerable time and resources in the case.”).

In ultimately upholding dismissal in Polansky, the Supreme Court recognized that “the Government’s interest in the suit is the same [at any stage] — and is the predominant one.”

Polansky, 599 U.S. at 434.

Qui tam suits are “brought in the name of the Government” and “the injury they assert is exclusively to the Government.”

Id. at 424–25 (citing § 3730(b)(1)).

In this case, the United States has good cause to intervene because it seeks to dismiss in part Relators’ Amended Complaint.

As the Third Circuit concluded in Polansky, the Government’s request to dismiss the suit “itself establishes good cause to intervene.”

Polansky, 599 U.S. at 429 n.2; see United States ex rel. Jackson v. Ventavia Rsch. Grp., LLC, — F. Supp. 3d —-, No. 1:21-CV-00008, 2024 WL 3812294, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2024)

(“the Government’s desire to dismiss the case . . . constitutes good cause to intervene”);

Brutus Trading, LLC v. Standard Chartered Bank, No. 20-2578, 2023 WL 5344973, at *2 (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2023) (government’s (c)(2)(A) motion amounted to a motion to intervene as well);

United States ex rel. Carver v. Physicians Pain Specialists of Alabama, P.C., 2023 WL 4853328, at *6 n.4 (11th Cir. July 31, 2023)

(ruling that “the same grounds that support dismissal also provide good cause to intervene”).

II.               Legal Standard for the United States’ Motion to Dismiss in Part Relator’s FCA Claims

Once the United States intervenes in a qui tam action, the FCA authorizes it to dismiss such an action, even if the relator objects:

“The Government may dismiss the action notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action if the person has been notified by the Government of the filing of the motion and the court has provided the person with an opportunity for a hearing on the motion.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A).

The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Polansky held that district courts should apply the standard of Rule 41(a) when evaluating a motion to dismiss under § 3730(c)(2)(A). 599 U.S. at 424.

(“We . . . hold that in handling such a motion, district courts should apply the rule generally governing voluntary dismissal of suits: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)”).

If the United States moves to dismiss before the defendants have served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, then dismissal may be accomplished merely by the filing of a “notice of dismissal.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).

However, where, as here, the United States moves to dismiss after the defendant has served an answer, then Rule 41(a)(2) controls, Polansky, 599 U.S. at 424, and the Court may dismiss the action “on terms that the court considers proper.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

In Polansky, the Supreme Court held that “(2)(A) motions will satisfy Rule 41 in all but the most exceptional cases.” 599 U.S. at 437.

When considering the government’s (c)(2)(A) motion, “the Government’s views are entitled to substantial deference” because “[a] qui tam suit . . . is on behalf of the and in the name of the Government . . . [and] alleges injury to the Government alone.” Id. The Supreme Court indicated that the “proper terms” assessment of Rule 41(a)(2) is met so long as the United States “[has given] good grounds for thinking that this suit would not do what all qui tam actions are supposed to do: vindicate the Government’s interests.

Absent some extraordinary circumstance, that sort of showing is all that is needed for the Government to prevail on a (2)(A) motion to dismiss.” Id. at 438.

Notably, the United States need only articulate a defensible reason for dismissal, because as the Court explained, a relator’s “competing assessment” of the merits or value of the case “could not outweigh the Government’s reasonable view of the suit’s costs and benefits.” Id.

The “minimal showing” requirement makes sense because a qui tam claim “belongs to the United States, and the statute expressly says that the Government may dismiss it ‘notwithstanding’ the relator’s objection.”

Order, U.S. ex rel. Vanderlan¸ No. 3:15-cv-00767-DPJ, Dkt. No. 192, at p. 5 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 12, 2024) (hereinafter, “Vanderlan Order,” attached hereto as Exhibit 4).

There is no requirement that the Government prove conclusively that a relator’s case lacks merit, nor is dismissal under (2)(A) the same thing as a ruling on the merits.

United States ex rel. Doe v. Credit Suisse AG, No. 22-1054, 2024 WL 3974986, at *5 (4th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024) (affirming dismissal without considering the merits of the relator’s case, stating:

“The government does not need to disprove the validity of an FCA claim in order to dismiss it since the government has discretion to control litigation brought on its behalf and in its name.”).

In Polansky, relator alleged that his employer was defrauding the government by charging inpatient rates for what should have been outpatient services. 599 U.S. at 428.

The government declined to intervene, and relator proceeded with the case, which spent years in discovery. Id. The government later reconsidered its assessment as to whether the case should go forward and, after deciding “that the varied burdens of the suit outweighed its potential value,” moved to dismiss relator’s claims. Id.

In moving to dismiss, the government cited, inter alia, the costs of future litigation and the low likelihood of success on the merits.

Although the relator disagreed with the government’s assessment of the case and maintained that the government was “leaving billions of dollars of potential recovery on the table,” the district court granted the government’s motion and the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed, explaining it was not even a “close call.”

Id. at 438.

II. The United States Is Entitled to Dismiss the FCA Claims that Accrued Before February 17, 2017.

Here, as in Polansky, the government has good grounds to dismiss the FCA qui tam claims in this action for conduct prior to February 17, 2017. The United

States has evaluated the probability that these previously settled, pre-2017 claims will succeed against the burdens to the United States of Relators’ continued pursuit of the pre-2017 claims and concluded that dismissal of those claims under § 3730(c)(2)(A) and Polansky is in the interest of the United States.

The United States has also considered that the pre-2017 claims were publicly and extensively litigated in the Fisher Case before Relators initiated this lawsuit.

The United States respectfully submits that together these considerations meet the highly deferential standard for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).

As to the first consideration, Relators’ pre-2017 claims against the RMBS Trust Defendants and Defendant Ocwen re-assert claims that have already been publicly and extensively litigated and resolved through settlement in the United States’ favor in the Fisher Case.

Relators’ pre-2017 claims against the RMBS Trust Defendants are premised solely on the conduct Defendant Ocwen previously settled for $15 million.

See Fisher Settlement, p. 3, ¶ 1.

Information about that conduct is in the public domain, and Relators do not bring additional knowledge to the pre- 2017 portion of their case against Defendant Ocwen or the RMBS Trust Defendants, just the allegation that the RMBS Trust Defendants are legally responsible.

The copy-cat nature of Relators’ pre-2017 claims supports dismissal, particularly when considered alongside the low probability that those claims will succeed and the burdens this case has created, and will continue to create for the United States.

As to the second consideration, Relators’ probability of success, all Defendants have argued that the affirmative defense of res judicata applies.

See Memorandum and Order, Dkt. No. 70, pp. 4-5.1

This Court declined to address res judicata in response to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

The RMBS Trust Defendants’ pending motion for partial summary judgment once again argues that res judicata applies to Relators’ pre-2017 claims against them.

See Dkt. No. 161.

Relators do not deny that they are precluded from re-litigating the pre-2017 claims against Defendant Ocwen by the Fisher Dismissal, and Relators admit that their only claims against the RMBS Trust Defendants for the pre-2017 period are vicarious liability claims based on Defendant Ocwen’s conduct.

To succeed against the RMBS Trust Defendants’ res judicata defense, Relators would, among other hurdles, have to address whether res judicata bars vicarious liability claims based on previously litigated conduct and why a consent judgment like the Fisher Dismissal Order is not entitled to full res judicata effect.

As to the third consideration, the United States’ burdens associated with Relators’ pursuit of the pre-2017 claims have been unusually high and may continue to grow.

This case, and Relators’ early claims in particular, have generated requests for extensive discovery to numerous federal agencies, including the Department of

1 Each Defendant has also re-asserted res judicata as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Amended Complaint. See Dkt No. 152, p. 49; Dkt No. 153, p. 49; Dkt. No. 154, p. 49; Dkt. No. 155, p. 49; Dkt. No. 156, p. 46.

Justice, which have been and will continue to be burdensome.

In addition, as this case moves past discovery and into summary judgment and trial, the numerous complex FCA legal issues implicated by the claims and defenses in this case will be burdensome for the United States to monitor and to address, as needed, by filing statements of interest.

The government has determined that these burdens outweigh any benefit of the continued litigation of the pre-2017 claims.

IV.    No In-Person Hearing is Necessary

In Polansky, the Court did not specify what procedures would satisfy the requirement of a “hearing” under Section 3730(c)(2)(A) and did not require an in- person hearing in all matters.

One Circuit Court has already ruled post-Polansky that a “hearing” encompasses a hearing on written papers.

Brutus Trading, 2023 WL 5344973, at 2-*3 (rejecting relator’s argument that an in-person hearing is required by Section 3730(c)(2)(A), stating that “the district court met the hearing requirement by carefully considering the parties’ written submissions”).

Moreover, as the court in Vanderlan recently held, dismissal does not require that the Government “present evidence or that an evidentiary hearing is required,” nor does it create a right to discovery.

See Vanderlan Order, Exhibit 4, at pp. 7-8; see also Ventavia, 2024 WL 3812294, at *9 (“an evidentiary hearing is not required by 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (c)(2)(A)”); Credit Suisse AG, 2024 WL 3974986, at *4 (“a live, in-person court hearing is not required to satisfy the ‘hearing’ requirement of Section 3730(c)(2)”).

Moreover, an in-person hearing would not aid the Court in adjudicating the Government’s motion to dismiss in this case.

In Polansky, the Supreme Court suggested that a hearing might establish a constitutional floor, inquiring into any credible allegations that dismissal might “violate the relator’s rights to due process or equal protection,” but did not elaborate on what would constitute such a violation.

Polansky, 599 U.S. at 436 n.4.

Those types of constitutional concerns clearly are not present in this case.

Accordingly, no hearing is required in this matter.

Id.; see Brutus Trading, LLC, 2023 WL 5344973, at *3; Order, U.S. ex. rel. Guglielmo v. Leidos, Inc., et al., No. 19-1576, Dkt. No. 22 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2024), attached hereto as Exhibit 5 (granting the United States’ motion to dismiss without an in-person hearing).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that, finding the United States had good cause to intervene in part, the Relators’ claims against any Defendant claims for violations of the FCA that accrued on or before February 17, 2017, are dismissed pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A).

Dated: September 16, 2024                 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

DAMIEN M. DIGGS

United States Attorney Eastern District of Texas

By:    /s/ Kelly E. Phipps
JAMIE ANN YAVELBERG SARA McLEAN

KELLY E. PHIPPS (DC Bar No. 1000687)
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 175 N St., NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 353-1284
kelly.e.phipps@usdoj.gov

JAMES GILLINGHAM
Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Texas
110 N. College Street; Suite 700
Tyler, Texas 75702
(903) 590-1400

James.Gillingham@usdoj.gov
Texas State Bar # 2406529

Attorneys for the United States

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served electronically via CM/ECF to all parties, on this 16th day of September, 2024.

/s/ Kelly E. Phipps Kelly E. Phipps Trial Attorney

Eichner v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

(4:19-cv-00524)

District Court, E.D. Texas

2019 CASE – REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 14, 2023
OCT 14, 24, NOV 1 20, DEC 18, 2023
FEB 4, 2024

Related case alert (res judicata)

It’s mainly been about ‘protective orders’ since our last update in Dec. Lots of hidin’ goin’ on, which is par for the course.

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19-cv-00524-ALM

Eichner, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.
Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III
Cause: 31:3729 False Claims Act
Date Filed: 07/15/2019
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 376 Qui Tam (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a))
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
11/21/2023 125 SUR-REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion re 113 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., U.S.Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Barnes, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/21/2023)
12/14/2023 126 RELATORS’ RESPONSE TO 123 OCWEN’S THIRD NOTICE REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF 99 ) Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 filed by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) Modified on 12/14/2023 to correct document link per call from filer. (jmb, ). Modified title per call from filer on 12/15/2023 (jmb, ). (Entered: 12/14/2023)
12/18/2023 127 REPLY to Response to Motion re 99 Opposed MOTION to Compel Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 filed by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 12/18/2023)
01/19/2024 128 OPPOSED MOTION for Protection by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit B-1, # 4 Exhibit B-2, # 5 Exhibit B-3, # 6 Exhibit B-4, # 7 Proposed Order)(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 01/19/2024)
01/26/2024 129 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Roger D Sanders on behalf of Jean-Marc Eichner (Sanders, Roger) (Entered: 01/26/2024)
01/29/2024 130 PAPER TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC for proceedings held on 01-26-2024 – Telephone Conference before Judge Amos Mazzant. (Forward to Chris Bickham)(Hastings, William) Modified on 1/29/2024 (nkl, ). (Entered: 01/29/2024)
01/30/2024 131 JOINT MOTION to Amend/Correct 117 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Protective Order by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., U.S.Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order proposed supplement to amended protective order)(Conway, Michael) Modified on 1/30/2024 (jmb, ). (Entered: 01/30/2024)
01/31/2024 132 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/26/2024 before Judge Amos Mazzant. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Christina Bickham,Telephone number: chris.bickham@yahoo.com.NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.txed.uscourts.gov

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Motion to Redact due 2/21/2024. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/30/2024. (Bickham, Chris) (Entered: 01/31/2024)

01/31/2024 133 SUPPLEMENT TO AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/31/2024. (jmb, ) (Entered: 01/31/2024)
01/31/2024 134 SUPPLEMENT TO AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/31/2024. (jmb, ) (Entered: 01/31/2024)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
02/04/2024 17:28:30

127
Dec 18, 2023
Main Doc­ument
Reply to Response to Motion

126
Dec 14, 2023
Main Doc­ument
Response to Motion

125
Nov 21, 2023
Main Doc­ument
Sur-Reply to Reply to Response to Motion

OPPOSED SUR-REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion re 113 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 11/20/2023)

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19-cv-00524-ALM

Eichner, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.
Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III
Cause: 31:3729 False Claims Act
Date Filed: 07/15/2019
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 376 Qui Tam (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a))
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
10/16/2023 111 JOINT MOTION for Entry of Scheduling Order by Jean-Marc Eichner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) Modified on 10/17/2023 (dm, ). (Entered: 10/16/2023)
10/23/2023 112 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Katherine Swan Wright on behalf of Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Wright, Katherine) (Entered: 10/23/2023)
10/23/2023 113 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration Declaration of Daniel Olejko, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R, # 20 Proposed Order)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2023)
10/23/2023 114 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., U.S.Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2023)
10/25/2023 115 JOINT MOTION to Amend/Correct – For Entry of Amended Protective Order by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 10/25/2023)
10/29/2023 116 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference SET for 12/5/2024 at 09:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. Expert Witness List due by 4/15/2024. Motions due by 7/3/2024. Discovery due by 7/17/2024. Mediation Completion due by 8/2/2024. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/23/2024. Proposed Findings of Fact due by 11/8/2024. Jury Instructions due by 11/8/2024. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 10/29/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 10/30/2023)
10/29/2023 117 AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 10/29/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 10/30/2023)
10/31/2023 118 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Roger Brian Cowie on behalf of Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Cowie, Roger) (Entered: 10/31/2023)
11/06/2023 119 RESPONSE in Opposition re 113 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration Declaration of W. Scott Hastings, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H)(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 11/06/2023)
11/06/2023 120 RESPONSE in Opposition re 113 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., U.S.Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Proposed Order)(Barnes, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/06/2023)
11/14/2023 121 REPLY to Response to Motion re 113 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint from the Trust Defendants filed by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/14/2023)
11/14/2023 122 REPLY to Response to Motion re 113 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint from Ocwen Defendants filed by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration of Mark Douglass, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/14/2023)
11/15/2023 123 THIRD NOTICE REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF 99 ) by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC re 99 Opposed MOTION to Compel Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 (Third) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Mowrey, Robert) Modified text on 11/16/2023 (jmb, ). (Entered: 11/15/2023)
11/20/2023 124 OPPOSED SUR-REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion re 113 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 11/20/2023)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
11/20/2023 16:32:52

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19-cv-00524-ALM

Eichner, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.
Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III
Cause: 31:3729 False Claims Act
Date Filed: 07/15/2019
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 376 Qui Tam (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a))
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
10/16/2023 111 JOINT MOTION for Entry of Scheduling Order by Jean-Marc Eichner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) Modified on 10/17/2023 (dm, ). (Entered: 10/16/2023)
10/23/2023 112 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Katherine Swan Wright on behalf of Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Wright, Katherine) (Entered: 10/23/2023)
10/23/2023 113 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration Declaration of Daniel Olejko, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R, # 20 Proposed Order)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2023)
10/23/2023 114 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., U.S.Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2023)
10/25/2023 115 JOINT MOTION to Amend/Correct – For Entry of Amended Protective Order by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 10/25/2023)
10/29/2023 116 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference SET for 12/5/2024 at 09:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. Expert Witness List due by 4/15/2024. Motions due by 7/3/2024. Discovery due by 7/17/2024. Mediation Completion due by 8/2/2024. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/23/2024. Proposed Findings of Fact due by 11/8/2024. Jury Instructions due by 11/8/2024. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 10/29/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 10/30/2023)
10/29/2023 117 AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 10/29/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 10/30/2023)
10/31/2023 118 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Roger Brian Cowie on behalf of Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Cowie, Roger) (Entered: 10/31/2023)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
11/01/2023 01:09:10

AMENDED COMPLAINT against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., U.S.Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)

(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2023)

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19-cv-00524-ALM

Eichner, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.
Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III
Cause: 31:3729 False Claims Act
Date Filed: 07/15/2019
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 376 Qui Tam (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a))
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
10/16/2023 111 JOINT MOTION for Entry of Scheduling Order by Jean-Marc Eichner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) Modified on 10/17/2023 (dm, ). (Entered: 10/16/2023)
10/23/2023 112 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Katherine Swan Wright on behalf of Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Wright, Katherine) (Entered: 10/23/2023)
10/23/2023 113 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration Declaration of Daniel Olejko, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R, # 20 Proposed Order)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2023)
10/23/2023 114 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., U.S.Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2023)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
10/24/2023 02:22:15

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s August 31, 2023 and October 4, 2023 orders (Dkts. 107 & 110), qui tam Relators Jean-Marc Eichner and Brandon Loyd, Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Financial Corporation, and the following (referred to collectively as the “Trust Defendants”),1 Defendants U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee on behalf of 457 Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust Defendants; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee on behalf of 617 Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust Defendants; The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. f/k/a The Bank of New York Trust Company, National Association and The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Successor- Trustees to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., on behalf of 329 Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust Defendants; The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation f/k/a The Bank of New York Company, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, on behalf of 194 Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust Defendants, (collectively “the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, respectfully ask this Court to consider and enter the proposed Amended Scheduling Order submitted herewith.

The proposed Amended Scheduling Order is the result of multiple conferences and good-faith discussions among counsel, who have reached agreement on all dates in the proposed Amended Scheduling Order, subject to the Court’s availability and approval. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that the Court adopt the proposed Amended Scheduling Order being submitted herewith.

1 The Trust Defendants contend that certain Trusts named in the Complaint as Trust Defendants no longer exist or are not administered by trustees named in the Complaint. Further, they contend that the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is not properly named in the Complaint as a trustee because it is a bank holding company that statutorily cannot (and does not) act as a trustee for any trust.

ORDER granting 109 Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Deadline to Submit Joint Proposed Amended Scheduling Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Parties shall submit a joint proposed amended scheduling order by October 16, 2023.

Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 10/04/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 10/04/2023)

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19-cv-00524-ALM

Eichner et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al
Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III
Cause: 31:3729 False Claims Act
Date Filed: 07/15/2019
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 376 Qui Tam (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a))
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Jean-Marc Eichner
Relator
represented by Samuel L Boyd
Boyd & Associates
6440 North Central Expressway
Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75206
214/696-2300
Fax: 12143636856
Email: sboyd@boydfirm.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatherine Carlyle Jobe
Boyd & Associates
6440 North Central Expressway
Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75206
214/696-2300
Fax: 12143636856
Email: cjobe@boydfirm.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDaniel Fletcher Olejko
Bragalone Olejko Saad PC
901 Main Street, Suite 3800
Dallas, TX 75202
214-785-6670
Fax: 214-785-6680
Email: dolejko@bosfirm.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJeffrey Ray Bragalone
Bragalone Olejko Saad PC
901 Main Street, Suite 3800
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 785-6671
Fax: 214-785-6680
Email: jbragalone@bosfirm.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMark Douglass
Bragalone Olejko Saad PC
901 Main St
Suite 3800
Dallas, TX 75202-3707
214-785-6670
Email: mdouglass@bosfirm.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDPaul Campbell Stevenson
Bragalone Olejko Saad PC
901 Main Street, Suite 3800
Dallas, TX 75202
214-785-6670
Fax: 214-785-6680
Email: pstevenson@canterburylaw.com
TERMINATED: 03/07/2023
Plaintiff
Brandon Loyd
Relator
represented by Samuel L Boyd
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatherine Carlyle Jobe
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDaniel Fletcher Olejko
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJeffrey Ray Bragalone
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMark Douglass
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDPaul Campbell Stevenson
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 03/07/2023
Plaintiff
United States of America
Ex rel.
represented by James Garland Gillingham
United States Attorney’s Office – Tyler
110 North College, Suite 700
Tyler, TX 75702
903-510-9346
Email: james.gillingham@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC represented by Christopher Scott Jones
Locke Lord LLP – Dallas
2200 Ross Ave, Suite 2800
Dallas, TX 75201-6776
214-740-8761
Fax: 214-740-8800
Email: sjones@lockelord.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert T Mowrey
Locke Lord LLP – Dallas
2200 Ross Ave, Suite 2800
Dallas, TX 75201-6776
214/740-8000
Fax: 214/740-8800
Email: rmowrey@lockelord.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDStephanie Rene’ Barnes
Plunk Smith, PLLC
2801 Network Boulevard
Suite 300
Frisco, TX 75034
972-370-3333
Fax: 972-294-5274
Email: sbarnes@plunksmith.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDWilliam Scott Hastings
Locke Lord LLP – Dallas
2200 Ross Ave, Suite 2800
Dallas, TX 75201-6776
214/740-8537
Fax: 12147408800
Email: shastings@lockelord.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Ocwen Financial Corporation represented by Christopher Scott Jones
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert T Mowrey
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDStephanie Rene’ Barnes
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDWilliam Scott Hastings
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
U.S.Bank, National Association
as Trustee, on behalf of 457 Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Trust Defendants
represented by Douglas W Baruch
Morgan Lewis & Brockius LLP – D.C.
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
202-739-5219
Fax: 202-739-3001
Email: douglas.baruch@morganlewis.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJennifer M Wollenberg
Morgan Lewis & Brockius LLP – D.C.
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
202-739-5313
Fax: 202-739-3001
Email: jennifer.wollenberg@morganlewis.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichael Kraut
Morgan Lewis & Bockius – NY
101 Park Ave
21st Fl.
New York, NY 10178
212-309-6927
Fax: 212-309-6001
Email: michael.kraut@morganlewis.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichelle D. Pector
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1000 Louisiana Street
Suite 4000
Houston, TX 77002
713-890-5455
Fax: 713-890-5001
Email: michelle.pector@morganlewis.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDStephanie Rene’ Barnes
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
as Trustee, on behalf of 617 Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Trust Defendants
represented by Douglas W Baruch
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJennifer M Wollenberg
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichael Kraut
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichelle D. Pector
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDStephanie Rene’ Barnes
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.
formerly known as
The Bank of New York Trust Company, National Association
represented by Douglas W Baruch
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJennifer M Wollenberg
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichael Kraut
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichelle D. Pector
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDStephanie Rene’ Barnes
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
The Bank of New York Mellon
formerly known as
The Bank of New York
represented by Douglas W Baruch
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJennifer M Wollenberg
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichael Kraut
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDStephanie Rene’ Barnes
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
formerly known as
The Bank of New York Company, Inc., as Successor-Trustees to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. on behalf of 329 Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Trust Defendants
represented by Douglas W Baruch
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJennifer M Wollenberg
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichael Kraut
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDStephanie Rene’ Barnes
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
as Trustee , on behalf of 194 Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Trust Defendants
represented by Michael P Conway
Jones Day – Chicago
110 North Wacker Drive
Suite 4800
Chicago, IL 60601-1692
312-782-3939
Fax: 312-782-8585
Email: mconway@jonesday.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDAmanda Dollinger
Jones Day
1 Irving Place
Ste Apt V12e
New York, NY 10003
516-343-3735
Email: adollinger@jonesday.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHoward F. Sidman
Jones Day – New York
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281-1047
212-326-3939
Fax: 212-755-7306
Email: hfsidman@jonesday.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames Arthur Reeder , Jr
Jones Day – Houston
717 Texas, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 77002
832-239-3838
Fax: 832-239-3600
Email: jareeder@jonesday.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDStephanie Rene’ Barnes
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
02/16/2023 71 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., U.S.Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Barnes, Stephanie) (Entered: 02/16/2023)
02/17/2023 72 ORDER granting 71 Motion to Extend Time to Answer the Complaint. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants shall have through March 6, 2023, to answer Relators’ Complaint. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 2/17/2023. (mcg, ) (Entered: 02/17/2023)
02/27/2023 73 Submission of Proposed Agreed Docket Control/Scheduling order by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd JOINT SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDERS. (Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/27/2023)
03/02/2023 74 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Mark Douglass on behalf of Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd (Douglass, Mark) (Entered: 03/02/2023)
03/06/2023 75 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 03/06/2023)
03/06/2023 76 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A..(Reeder, James) (Entered: 03/06/2023)
03/06/2023 77 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by U.S.Bank, National Association.(Barnes, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/06/2023)
03/06/2023 78 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A..(Barnes, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/06/2023)
03/06/2023 79 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.(Barnes, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/06/2023)
03/06/2023 80 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Paul C. Stevenson by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Olejko, Daniel) (Entered: 03/06/2023)
03/07/2023 81 ORDER granting 80 Motion to Withdraw Paul C. Stevenson as Counsel of Record. It is hereby ORDERED that Paul C. Stevenson is withdrawn as counsel for Relators. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 3/7/2023. (mcg, ) (Entered: 03/07/2023)
03/21/2023 82 Notice of filing Petition for Writ of Mandamus received from 5th Circuit via email, Case Number 23-40174 (Attachments: # 1 USCA Cover Letter)(mcg, ) (Entered: 03/22/2023)
03/22/2023 83 Joint MOTION for Protective Order and Agreed Order for Production of Electronically Stored Information by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order – Production of ESI, # 2 Text of Proposed Order – Protective Order)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2023)
03/24/2023 84 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 03/24/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 03/24/2023)
03/24/2023 85 AGREED ORDER FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 03/24/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 03/24/2023)
04/05/2023 86 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/29/2024 at 09:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. Amended Pleadings due by 7/24/2023. Discovery due by 12/8/2023. Joinder of Parties due by 6/10/2023. Jury instructions due by 2/7/2024. Mediation Completion due by 10/31/2023. Motions due by 10/2/2023. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 1/22/2024. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 4/5/2023. (mcg, ) (Entered: 04/05/2023)
04/10/2023 87 Notice received via email from the Fifth Circuit, COURT ORDER denying Petition for writ of mandamus (Attachments: # 1 USCA Cover Letter)(mcg, ) (Entered: 04/10/2023)
04/14/2023 88 NOTICE by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC of Related Lawsuit (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Plaintiffs’ Original Petition)(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 04/14/2023)
05/05/2023 89 Joint MOTION for Entry of Order Allowing Production of Confidential Documents from the Fisher Case by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/05/2023)
05/31/2023 90 ORDER granting 89 Joint and Unopposed Motion for Entry of Order Allowing Production of Confidential Documents from the Fisher Case. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 5/31/2023. (mcg, ) (Entered: 05/31/2023)
06/25/2023 91 ***WITHDRAWN PER ORDER 98 *** MOTION to Quash and for Protective Order, and Objections to Subpoena by Samuel L. Boyd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order)(LeBoeuf, Nicole) Modified on 7/11/2023 (mcg). (Entered: 06/25/2023)
06/29/2023 92 NOTICE by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Proof of Service / Subpoena to Roger D. Sanders (Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2023)
07/05/2023 93 MOTION to Withdraw 91 MOTION to Quash and for Protective Order, and Objections to Subpoena by Samuel L. Boyd. (LeBoeuf, Nicole) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/6/2023: # 1 Proposed Order) (mcg, ). (Entered: 07/05/2023)
07/06/2023 94 Digital Audio Recording Request by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC for proceedings held on 06/30/2023 – Discovery Dispute Hearing before Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III.(Forward to Keary) (Hastings, William) Modified on 7/6/2023 (nkl, ). (Entered: 07/06/2023)
07/07/2023 95 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance – Pro Hac Vice by Amanda Dollinger on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ATXEDC-9587331. (Dollinger, Amanda) (Entered: 07/07/2023)
07/08/2023 96  Digital Audio File regarding Telephone Conference held on 6/30/2023 before Amos L. Mazzant, III. AUDIO FILE size(11.6 MB) requested by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC for proceedings held on 06/30/2023. (kkc, ) (Entered: 07/08/2023)
07/10/2023 97 RESPONSE in Opposition re 91 MOTION to Quash and for Protective Order, and Objections to Subpoena filed by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration Declaration of Joel L. Israel, # 2 Affidavit/Declaration Declaration of W. Scott Hastings, # 3 Additional Attachment(s) Loyd Deposition Excerpts)(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 07/10/2023)
07/11/2023 98 ORDER granting 93 Motion to Withdraw Motion to Quash, Motion for Protective Order, and Objections to Subpoena. It is therefore ORDERED that Boyd’s Motion to Quash, Motion for Protective Order, and Objections to Subpoena (Dkt. # 91 ) is hereby WITHDRAWN. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/11/2023. (mcg) (Entered: 07/11/2023)
07/12/2023 99 Opposed MOTION to Compel Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration Declaration of W. Scott Hastings, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order)(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 07/12/2023)
07/12/2023 100 NOTICE by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., U.S.Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. re 99 Opposed MOTION to Compel Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 Statement of Interest (Barnes, Stephanie) (Entered: 07/12/2023)
07/19/2023 101 RESPONSE in Opposition re 99 Opposed MOTION to Compel Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 filed by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration Declaration of Daniel F. Olejko, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Proposed Order)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/19/2023)
07/19/2023 102 RESPONSE to 100 Notice (Other), of the Trust Defendants’ Statement of Interest filed by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/19/2023)
07/21/2023 103 RESPONSE in Support re 99 Opposed MOTION to Compel Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 filed by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Declaration of W. Scott Hastings)(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 07/21/2023)
07/27/2023 104 SUR-REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion re 99 Opposed MOTION to Compel Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 filed by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/27/2023)
08/11/2023 105 NOTICE by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC re 99 Opposed MOTION to Compel Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 (Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 08/11/2023)
08/16/2023 106 Joint MOTION to Vacate 86 Scheduling Order, by Jean-Marc Eichner, Brandon Loyd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bragalone, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/16/2023)
08/31/2023 107 ORDER granting 106 Joint MOTION to Vacate 86 Scheduling Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall submit a joint proposed amended scheduling order within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. This Order is without prejudice to any party’s right to seek a further amendment or modification of the schedule under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 08/31/2023. (jmb) (Entered: 08/31/2023)
09/19/2023 108 NOTICE by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC re 99 Opposed MOTION to Compel Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 – Second Notice Regarding Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration Declaration of W. Scott Hastings, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit A-1, # 4 Exhibit A-2, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G)(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 09/19/2023)
10/02/2023 109 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Proposed Amended Scheduling Order by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., U.S.Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Barnes, Stephanie) (Entered: 10/02/2023)
10/04/2023 110 ORDER granting 109 Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Deadline to Submit Joint Proposed Amended Scheduling Order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Parties shall submit a joint proposed amended scheduling order by October 16, 2023. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 10/04/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 10/04/2023)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
10/14/2023 06:49:14

NOTICE by Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC re 99 Opposed MOTION to Compel Relators to Respond to Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 –

Second Notice Regarding Motion to Compel

(Attachments: # 1 Affidavit/Declaration Declaration of W. Scott Hastings, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit A-1, # 4 Exhibit A-2, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G)

(Mowrey, Robert) (Entered: 09/19/2023)

RELATORS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION’S AND OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL RELATORS TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES 2, 3, & 4

I.                   INTRODUCTION

Despite futile attempts to recast Interrogatory Nos. 2–4 as seeking only factual information and their unfounded claim that Relators have “admit[ted]” that the information sought by Interrogatory No. 2 is “not privileged” and “discoverable” (Dkt. 103 at 1), Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Financial Corporation (collectively “Ocwen”) cannot deny their interrogatories’ reach for privileged information drawn from Relators’ disclosure statements and communications with the government and government investigators.

Interrogatory 2 even seeks Relators’ work product through which to discern the documents Relators selected for inclusion in the disclosure statements and why.

Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 seek substantive information regarding Relators’ pre-suit government communications, which are protected by the common interest doctrine.

Because Ocwen fails to show that it has substantial need for or that it lacks the ability to obtain the information through other means without undue hardship, the Court should deny the motion to compel and simply order the parties to exchange privilege logs within 30 days.

II.                ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

A.     Interrogatory 2 Seeks Protected Information, Not Merely Factual Information Regarding Relators’ Documents.

While Ocwen now contends that it “has the right to discover when each document was provided to the government,” that was not the information sought by Interrogatory No. 2.

See Dkt. 103 at 2.

Interrogatory No. 2 explicitly seeks the identification of documents “provided to the United States as part of [Relators’] disclosures under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2).”

Dkt. 99-1, Ex. A at 5 (emphasis added).

It therefore seeks the identification of the precise documents that Relators’ counsel selected for inclusion in the disclosure statements.

This information is protected from discovery by the work product doctrine as at least ordinary work product, if not opinion work product.

Dkt. 101 at 6–8.

Because Interrogatory No. 2 seeks the disclosure of which documents Relators selected for use in their § 3730(b)(2) disclosure statements, it does not merely seek basic factual information about when Relators disclosed documents to the government.

Insight into counsel’s strategic considerations is not the proper subject of factual discovery.

However, when Defendants properly requested non-privileged factual information about Relators’ documents in their interrogatories, such as which “Ocwen Documents” Relators had in their possession after leaving Ocwen, Relators provided it.

See Dkt. 101 at 12.

In addition, Relators have already disclosed the dates that Relators provided their disclosures to the government, produced all documents underlying their disclosures, and identified the material witnesses that Relators disclosed to the government.

See Dkt. 101 at 2–4.

Relators have repeatedly proposed that the parties exchange privilege logs on a mutually agreed date (or as ordered by the Court), which will provide Ocwen further information on the timing of Relators’ disclosures to the government.

In fact, Ocwen’s own documents show that Relators have already provided Ocwen with the same factual information that the relators in Fisher and Homeward disclosed to Ocwen—a fact that Ocwen now pointedly ignores.

See id. at 9.

Thus, it is not that Relators seek to have the Court impose “a lower standard for disclosing evidence” here (Dkt. 103 at 3).

Rather, it is that Ocwen seeks the Court to increase that standard to require disclosure of Relators’ protected work product.

Ocwen does not dispute that the Fisher and Homeward relators were not required to answer an interrogatory in the form of Interrogatory No. 2, or that those relators identified which documents were selected for inclusion in which disclosure statements.

Instead, Ocwen contorts a portion of Relators’ argument in an attempt to show that Relators have admitted that the information sought by Interrogatory No. 2 is “not privileged” and “discoverable.”

Dkt. 103 at 1.

But Relators never made such concessions, and no reader could, in good faith, glean such an admission from their response.

Relators argued that Ocwen cannot show a substantial need for the information sought by Interrogatory No. 2 because it could obtain non-privileged information about the documents produced by Relators via other discovery methods1 without asking Relators whether specific documents were referenced in Relators’ disclosure statements under § 3730(b)(2).

See Dkt. 101 at 12–13.

Critically, Ocwen does not explain why it cannot seek discovery regarding “the timing elements of the original source exception” without reference to the § 3730(b)(2) disclosures using the information already disclosed by Relators.

See Dkt. 103 at 3.

Ocwen also argues that Relators somehow waived any claim of privilege by “put[ting] that matter at issue.”

Dkt. 103 at 3.

To the contrary, this Court rejected a similar argument made by the defendant in JPMorgan because “[i]t was actually Defendant who placed the disclosure statements ‘at issue’ by moving for summary judgment on the public-disclosure bar,” and the relators “did not rely on the disclosure statements themselves to advance their original source-argument.”

See 2020 WL 3265060, at *9.

Similarly, Relators have not placed their § 3730(b)(2) disclosure statements at issue and have not relied upon the inclusion of specific documents in the disclosure statements to support their original source argument.

Instead, Relators argue that their knowledge and independent observations of violations—which they had before submitting the disclosure statements—qualifies them as original sources.

Accepting Ocwen’s waiver argument would discourage all FCA relators from providing detailed disclosure statements to the government, which is inconsistent with public policy.

See id. at *9–10.

1 The Court has repeatedly emphasized the availability of other discovery methods, including depositions, as an indication that defendants cannot show a substantial need for the discovery of disclosure statements. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Fisher v. Ocwen Loan Serv., LLC, No. 4:12- CV-543, 2015 WL 4609742, at *4 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2015) (“Ocwen has the opportunity to question Relators regarding the information contained within their allegations and their investigative efforts.”); see also United States ex rel. Fisher v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., No. 4:16-CV-395, 2020 WL 3265060, at *7 n.2 (E.D. Tex. June 17, 2020) (noting that defendants still had time to obtain “more factual information about what Realtors informed the Government about prior to filing their complaints” through other discovery).

In essence, Ocwen’s argument boils down to this: that without knowing which documents were cited in which of Relators’ disclosure statements, Ocwen supposedly cannot adequately test whether Relators’ voluntarily disclosed to the government the information on which their allegations are based before filing this lawsuit.

While Ocwen claims that it “is not seeking this information to verify that Section 3730(b)(2)’s procedural requirements were satisfied” (Dkt. 103 at 1 n.1), it plainly seeks the information to explore an alleged potential procedural short comings with respect to § 3730(e)(4)(B).

See Dkt. 99 at 3.

As this Court held in JPMorgan, a “[d]efendant cannot rely on an uncertain legal argument regarding potential procedural short comings in order to demonstrate a substantial need.”

See 2020 WL 3265060, at *7 (quotations omitted).

B.     Interrogatory No. 3 Seeks Privileged Information Concerning Relators’ Communications with the Government.

Defendants do not attempt to refute the authority cited by Relators demonstrating that the the substance of Relators’ communications with the government, including a summary of Relators’ disclosure statements, is protected from discovery by the common interest doctrine.

Compare Dkt. 101 at 13–14, with Dkt. 103 at 4.

Because Interrogatory No. 3 seeks that exact privileged information, Relators need only comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) and produce a privilege log.

See United States ex rel. Reddell v. DynCorp Int’l, LLC, No. 1:14-CV-86, 2019 WL 12875494, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2019) (Crone, J.) (ordering the production of a privilege log for relator’s privileged communications with the government);

Dkt. 101-9 at 9 (same).

Indeed, Ocwen now concedes that it “does not object to Relators providing their answers in the form of a detailed log.”

Dkt. 103 at 4.

But, contrary to Ocwen’s suggestion, Relators are not seeking to delay providing this information. Quite the opposite.

Relators have consistently offered Ocwen to exchange a privilege log on an agreed date (and are willing to do so sooner than thirty days if Ocwen can do so as well).

But because Defendants have refused to identify such a date, Relators have requested that the Court set a deadline for the exchange of privilege log within 30 days of the Court’s order resolving Ocwen’s motion to compel.

C.     Interrogatory No. 4 Seeks Privileged Information Concerning Relators’ Communications with Government Investigators.

Like Relators’ communications with the government itself, Relators’ communications with SIGTARP—a government investigator—are protected from discovery by the common interest doctrine.

See Dkt. 101 at 14.

Ocwen does not meaningfully refute this point. Instead, Ocwen argues that it “has a strong and substantial need for the information … for purposes of assessing materiality under Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. 176 (2016) and this Court’s ‘actual knowledge’ standard.”

Dkt. 103 at 5.

But Ocwen failed to make this argument in its opening brief with respect to Interrogatory No. 4 (see Dkt. 99 at 12–14) and thereby waived it.

See Sparrow v. EK Real Estate Servs., NY, LLC, No. 4:22-CV-00046-SDJ-CAN, 2023 WL 3035359, at *10 n.6 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2023) (“[T]he Court need not consider this argument because arguments raised for the first time in a reply (or sur-reply) brief are waived.”).

Regardless, Relators’ communications with SIGTARP relating to Ocwen would not necessarily show the government’s “actual knowledge” of the fraud—at best, they would show that SIGTARP had awareness of Relators’ allegations of fraud, which is insufficient to establish lack of materiality under Escobar.

See JPMorgan, 2020 WL 3265060, at *8–9.

Indeed, the Court rejected a defendant’s argument that it had a substantial need for production of relators’ disclosure statements in JPMorgan for this very reason. See id. (refusing to hold that “any dispute regarding materiality requires discovery of a relator’s disclosure statement”).

III.             CONCLUSION

Relators respectfully request that the Court deny Ocwen’s motion to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2–4 and order the parties to produce privilege logs within 30 days.

Samuel L. Boyd, Senior Partner

Sam Boyd was honored in May 2018 as the Top 100 Lawyers Magazine’s 2018 Attorney of the Year and has received their prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award in the field of law.

Sam Boyd was also honored as a 2015 Distinguished Alumnus by the Texas Tech School of Law.

Texas native and former Green Beret Captain Samuel (“Sam”) L. Boyd practices in the areas of: qui tam litigation; False Claims Act litigation and whistleblower cases, generally.

The American Registry – Sam Boyd Recognitions

Last updated January 2022

  1. Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
  2. Million Dollar Advocates Forum
  3. ALM Top Attorney 2022 Q1
  4. M-H 2022 AV Preeminent Attorney
  5. AR America’s Most Honored Professionals 2021 – Top 1%
  6. M-H 2021 AV Preeminent Attorney – Judicial Edition
  7. M-H 2021 AV Preeminent Lawyers.com
  8. M-H 2021 AV Preeminent Attorney
  9. 2021 Avvo Top-Rated Lawyer
  10. NTL Business Tort Trial Lawyers – Top 10 2021
  11. NTL Top 100 Lawyers 2013-2021
  12. Top 100 Lawyers Magazine’s Top Texas Lawyer 2020 Q4
  13. AR America’s Most Honored Professionals 2020 – Top 1%
  14. M-H 2020 AV Preeminent Attorney – Judicial Edition
  15. M-H 2020 AV Preeminent Lawyers.com
  16. M-H 2020 AV Preeminent Attorney
  17. 2020 Avvo Top-Rated Lawyer
  18. NTL’s Top 10 Lawyers 2020
  19. Lawyers of Distinction 2019-2020
  20. AR America’s Most Honored Professionals 2019 – Top 1%
  21. M-H 2019 AV Preeminent Attorney – Judicial Edition
  22. M-H 2019 AV Preeminent Lawyers.com
  23. M-H 2019 AV Preeminent Attorney
  24. Top 100 Lawyers Magazine’s 2018 America’s Top Business Fraud and Whistleblower Attorney
  25. Top 100 Lawyers Magazine’s 2018 Attorney of the Year
  26. Top 100 Lawyers Magazine’s 2018 Lifetime Achievement Award
  27. AR America’s Most Honored Professionals 2018 – Top 1%
  28. M-H 2018 AV Preeminent Attorney – Judicial Edition
  29. M-H 2018 AV Preeminent Lawyers.com
  30. M-H 2018 AV Preeminent Attorney
  31. AR America’s Most Honored Professionals 2017 – Top 1%
  32. M-H 2017 AV Preeminent Attorney – Judicial Edition
  33. M-H 2017 AV Preeminent Attorney
  34. AR America’s Most Honored Professionals 2016 – Top 1%
  35. M-H 2016 AV Preeminent Attorney – Judicial Edition
  36. M-H 2016 AV Preeminent Attorney
  37. 2015 Distinguished Alumnus by the Texas Tech School of Law
  38. M-H 2015 AV Preeminent Attorney – Judicial Edition
  39. M-H 2015 AV Preeminent Attorney
  40. M-R Top Rated Lawyers in Litigation
  41. M-R Texas Top Rated Lawyer
  42. M-H 2014 AV Preeminent Attorney – Judicial Edition
  43. M-H 2014 AV Preeminent Attorney
  44. M-H 2013 AV Preeminent Attorney – Judicial Edition
  45. M-H 2013 AV Preeminent Attorney
  46. M-H 2012 AV Preeminent Attorney – Judicial Edition
  47. M-H 2012 AV Preeminent Attorney
  48. M-H 2011 AV Preeminent Attorneys – Judicial Edition
  49. M-H 2011 AV Preeminent Lawyers.com
  50. M-H 2010 AV Preeminent Lawyers.com
  51. M-H 2010 AV Preeminent Lawyer
  52. 2010 Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys
  53. 2010 Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys – B&A
  54. 2009 Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys
  55. 2009 Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers – B&A
  56. AV Peer Review Rated 2009
  57. AV Peer Review Rated 2008

The American Registry – Catherine C. Jobe Recognitions

Last updated August 23, 2019

  1. America’s Most Honored Professionals 2019 – Top 5%
  2. BV 15th Anniversary in 2019
  3. 2019 Distinguished Attorney
  4. America’s Most Honored Professionals 2018 – Top 5%
  5. 2018 Distinguished Attorney
  6. 2018 Distinguished Attorney
  7. America’s Most Honored Professionals 2017 – Top 5%
  8. 2017 Distinguished Attorney
  9. America’s Most Honored Professionals 2016 – Top 1%
  10. 2016 Distinguished Attorney
  11. BV Litigation Top Rated Lawyer
  12. BV Litigation Top Rated Lawyer
  13. Martindale-Hubbell 25th Anniversary
  14. Martindale-Hubbell Top Rated Lawyers: Texas Women Leaders
  15. 2015 BV Distinguished Attorney
  16. Martindale-Hubbell 10th Anniversary
  17. 2014 BV Distinguished Attorney
  18. PRR BV Distinguished Attorneys 2012
  19. PRR BV Distinguished Attorneys 2011
  20. PRR BV Lawyers.com
  21. Listed Lawyer in 2010 Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys – B&A
  22. The 2010 Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers – B&A
  23. PRR BV Distinguished Attorneys 2010
  24. BV Rated Attorney 2009
  25. Listed Lawyer in 2009 Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys
  26. Listed Lawyer in 2009 Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys – B&A
  27. The 2009 Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers – B&A
  28. BV® Peer Review Rated 2009
  29. The 2008 Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers
  30. BV® Peer Review Rated 2008

Experience

  • Higher Education Servicing Corporation logo
    Director of Marketing And Business Development

    Higher Education Servicing Corporation · Full-time Sep 2022 – Present · 1 yr 2 mos Arlington, Texas, United States

      • Skills: Branding · Product Marketing · Business-to-Business (B2B)
  • Senior Vice President, Mortgage Originations + Customer Experience

    Servis One Inc. dba BSI Financial Services · Full-time May 2019 – Jul 2022 · 3 yrs 3 mos Irving, TX

      • In charge of all aspects of mortgage originations, i.e. Sales, Underwriting, Processing, Closing, Post-Closing, Vendor Management
      • Skills: Business Modeling · Branding · Product Marketing · Executive Management · Loan Origination · Loan Processing · Secondary Mortgage Market · Residential Mortgages · Mortgage Lending
  • Ocwen Financial Corporation - US logo
    Vice President Customer Experience

    Ocwen Financial Corporation – US Jan 2016 – Apr 2019 · 3 yrs 4 mos Dallas/Fort Worth Area

      • In charge of improving customer-facing processes and eliminating pain points identified through complaints and surveys. Improved NPS by 35 points in 3 years.
      • Skills: Branding
  • Director, Customer Experience

    CitiMortgage Jul 2011 – Jun 2014 · 3 yrs Irving, TX

      • ➢ In charge of improving the Client Experience throughout the Mortgage division (including Sales, Fulfillment, Servicing, Default Servicing) ➢ Defined the Client Experience Strategy, to give guidelines for the rebuilding of all the communication and all the client-facing processes ➢ Work with all divisions to enhance Client satisfaction and ultimately increase recapture and profits. Amongst other achievements: o Redesigned the Client Complaints process to achieve contact within 24 hours and resolution within 30 days o Redefined the Appraisal ordering process to gain time and reduce client anxiety o Advised the sales call centers on 25 changes to increase customer satisfaction, productivity and conversion of leads o Revised all the customer correspondence for Performing Servicing (25 million letters) and Default servicing (120 million letters sent per year) o Revised the credit guidelines for affluent customers o Advising International Divisions on marketing and sales of mortgages (Asia-Pacific) o Member of various committees (IT prioritization, Complaints, Customer Satisfaction, International Customer Experience)
  • Senior Vice President, Residential Lending

    Aris Bank Jan 2010 – Jul 2011 · 1 yr 7 mos

      • in charge of the Residential Mortgage Division
      • Skills: Branding · Product Marketing
  • Bank of America logo
    Executive Vice President, Direct Sales and Maketing

    Bank of America Dec 2005 – Jan 2009 · 3 yrs 2 mos Plano, TX

      • Head of Portfolio Lending Division (Mortgage Loans) 1,000 sales people + Marketing staff $250,000,000 profit generated / yr $20bn sales / yr (billion with a B)
      • Skills: Business Modeling · Branding
  • Executive Vice President, Direct Sales and Marketing

    Countrywide Home Loans/Bank of America Dec 2005 – Jan 2009 · 3 yrs 2 mos

      • Led and motivated 9 sales teams of 1,100 sales managers, officers, and representatives to produce sales of $20B in 2007 and $21B in 2008. Teams covered inbound, outbound, customer service referrals, purchase referrals, internet purchase, modifications, pay-offs, restructures, and multi-cultural markets channels. Achieved an average increase of 30% per year in Mortgage and Home Equity loan fundings (2006-2008), exceeding Mortgage Bankers Association application index consistently, and led to division to become company’s most profitable business unit despite difficult, hostile market environment. Generated a 30 % increase in profits per year (2006, 2007) by leading legal, compliance, and operations teams to raise lender fees, shifting sales focus from home equity loans to more profitable refinance loans, and redesigning compensation structure. Improved customer recapture rate from 5% to 32% in three years (approaching maximum attainable rate of 40%). Directed portfolio marketing team of business managers and statisticians to define marketing strategy for each direct marketing channel. Designed direct mail, email, statement messages, web advertisements, and outbound telemarketing campaigns. Grew monthly lead generation from 200K to 350K-450K on same $45M annual budget by expanding direct mail population; evaluating and challenging existing segmentation rules; hiring talented, highly qualified staff; implementing rigorous testing methodology for new marketing collateral in parallel with existing marketing pieces.
      • Skills: Business Modeling · Product Marketing
  • 6 yrs 4 mos

      • Sep 1999 – Dec 2005 · 6 yrs 4 mos

          • COO of French Subsidiary (1999-2000) Installment Loans (2001-2003) Capital One Mortgage and Home Equity (2003-2005)
          • Skills: Business Modeling · Product Marketing
      • Sep 1999 – Dec 2005 · 6 yrs 4 mos

          • Built and led team of 18 direct marketing, compliance, and operations professionals, 300 loan officers and 150 processors to market mortgage products, generate leads, and maintain relationships with third-party inbound call center and credit policy team. Oversaw all compliance and risk management activities. Managed $11M annual marketing budget and $12M of television advertising spend. Initiated diversification into mortgage lending by launching a private label partnership and outsourcing agreement with Countrywide. Diversified company’s product offerings by acquiring mortgage lender, eSmartLoans.com. Contributed to research, due diligence, and negotiations, and personally worked with former CEO to integrate two teams. Drove sales of newly acquired entity from $450M to $2.5B year-over-year by initiating cross-selling activities to 48M existing credit card customers.
          • Skills: Business Modeling · Branding · Product Marketing
  • Vice-President, Division Head

    Capital One Financial, Installment Loans Jan 2001 – Jan 2003 · 2 yrs 1 mo

      • Directed marketing and lead generation for Personal Loan division that generated $100M in annual revenue. Oversaw division P&L, credit risk/losses, and underwriting guidelines. Built and led 35-member marketing team of business analysts, statisticians, data analysts, and project managers. Managed $20M annual marketing budget. Relaunched Personal Loans line of business to achieve an average 50% per year increase in loan production for three consecutive years, while maintaining credit losses below 2% by launching multiple new segments and innovative products, as well as redesigning collections and recoveries strategies. Doubled profits from $10M to $20M in one year by creating Payment Insurance feature in servicing system.
      • Skills: Business Modeling · Branding · Product Marketing
  • COO

    Capital One France 1999 – 2001 · 2 yrs

      • Skills: Branding
  • Deputy General Manager

    Capital One Financial, France Jan 1999 – Jan 2000 · 1 yr 1 mo

      • Additional experience, allCreated, established, and managed French subsidiary operation encompassing originations, new account set-up, customer relations, collections, real estate, risk operations, production services, operations metrics/analysis, legal and training. Managed relationships with Banque de France, professional unions, major credit cards, and former JV partner, Banque Sofinco. Built and managed team of 60 staff, plus 100 outsourced call center sales reps. Controlled $10M annual budget. Secured approval and license from Banque de France (French equivalent of U.S. Federal Reserve Bank) to create bank by leveraging substantial in-country banking experience. Launched bank operations by securing 50K square feet of office space, as well as sourcing and implementing credit card and loan origination/servicing systems. Established and launched two subcontracted call centers with 60 representatives that exceeded all call handling and performance targets despite an actual gross response rate nearly double the original forecast. Additional experience, all
      • Skills: Branding
  • Direct Sales Manager/Joint Venture Manager

    Banque Sofinco (Credit Agricole Group) Mar 1997 – Sep 1999 · 2 yrs 7 mos Evry, France

      • Skills: Branding
  • Societe Generale logo
    Senior Manager, internal organization team

    Societe Generale Feb 1996 – Mar 1997 · 1 yr 2 mos

  • Braxton Associates logo
    Consultant and Case Leader

    Braxton Associates Jun 1990 – Feb 1996 · 5 yrs 9 mos

  • 2 yrs 7 mos

As a shareholder at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dan manages complex commercial cases before federal courts and agencies, with an emphasis on appellate practice.

Dan believes that the law should be expressed in a way that can be easily understood by everyone.

He prides himself on his ability to translate complex legal and technical concepts to clients, courts, and juries in a simple, straight-forward manner.

Dan has over 10 years of experience litigating patent cases throughout the country.

These cases have involved a wide range of patented technologies, including LED controllers, LCD displays, CCD and CMOS image sensors, telecommunications systems, semiconductor design and fabrication techniques, software processes, and medical devices.

He has briefed countless cases before the federal courts of appeals, argued over half a dozen of those cases, and achieved successful outcomes for his clients in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In addition, Dan has represented clients in numerous post-grant review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as well as Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission. Dan’s clients have included inventors, small businesses, large technology companies, investors, public and private universities, and research institutions.

Prior to joining Bragalone Olejko Saad, Dan led the appellate division of Shore Chan Bragalone DePumpo LLP, served as a staff attorney for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and worked for the Pennsylvania appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

One very recent example is insider Magistrate Judge David Shultz in the District of Minnesota:

“Legal Anarchy Unfolds in Minnesota as Replacement Judge’s PHH Mortgage Corp. Ties Spark Citizen Outrage

MN Appoints Judge Who Previously Represented PHH Mortgage. LIT reveals the Minnesota Judiciary’s Scandalous Acts enabling Wall St Home Theft.”

READ THE ARTICLE ON LIT

READ THE LATEST RESPONSE TO THIS MN FEDERAL CASE

LIT COMMENTARY

Extract from complaint (p.66)

Aside from engaging in tactical delays designed to force delinquent borrowers into foreclosure, Ocwen Loan Servicing (OLS) from at least as early as 2011, and on information and belief from as early as April 16, 2009 regularly engaged in the following harmful and unlawful behavior, violating their obligations to the Treasury and loss mitigation standards:

a) Inadequate staffing to accomplish goals of the loss mitigation programs, compounded by the staff’s lack of training, education, experience and skills needed to perform the services for which the staff was hired. OLS’s failure to adequately train and supervise personnel and facilitate the development of such skills and understanding was a major cause of pervasive unlawful underwriting;

b) Failure to evaluate delinquent loans for all loss mitigation options within 30 days;

c) Failure to evaluate delinquent FHA loans for loss mitigation options prior to the loan becoming four monthly payments past due or within 90 days of delinquency;

d) Improper performance of modification underwriting;

e) Inadequate establishment of loan modification procedures;

f) Misplacing and failing to properly store loan modification documents;

g) Wrongful, fraudulent denial of modification applications;

h) Providing false/misleading information to borrowers;

i) Not responding timely to borrower inquiries;

j) Improper calculations of borrowers’ eligibility for loan modifications;

k) Continuing to unlawfully assess late fees when borrowers were in review for loss mitigation options;

l) Improper processing of modification applications, leading to denial;

and

m) Off-shore loan underwriting and reviews resulting in wrongful denials due to misunderstanding, confusion, lack of experience, education, training and cultural misunderstandings.

United States ex rel. Eichner v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,

Civil Action 4:19-CV-524 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2023)

REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 14, 2023
OCT 14, 2023

Related case alert (res judicata)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court are Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s and Ocwen Financial Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Relator’s Complaint (Dkt. #40), Defendants U.S. Bank National Association’s, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. F/K/A The Bank of New York Trust Company, National Association’s, The Bank of New York Mellon F/K/A The Bank of New York’s, and The Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation F/K/A The Bank of New York Company’s

Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Certain Trust Defendants (Dkt. #48),

Loan Servicing, LLC’s and Ocwen Financial Corporation’s Motion to Strike the Boyd and Sanders Declarations Submitted by Relators in Response to Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. #60),

and

Defendants’ Joint Motion Requesting an Oral Hearing (Dkt. #66).

Having considered the motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motions to dismiss should be DENIED, the motion for a hearing should be DENIED as MOOT, and the motion to strike should be DENIED as MOOT.

BACKGROUND

In 2008, the United States faced a housing crisis caused, in part, by mortgage fraud and predatory lending. The crisis caused home prices to plummet and foreclosures to skyrocket, leaving homeowners with negative equity in their homes.

Distressed homeowners were unable to sell or refinance their homes to meet their mortgage obligations.

In response to this crisis, the Government enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”).

The Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), administered by the Treasury Department, was a voluntary program under EESA designed to prevent avoidable foreclosures by providing homeowners with affordable mortgage-loan modifications and other alternatives to eligible buyers.

HAMP’s primary goal was to relieve the burden on homeowners by lowering their mortgage payments to 31% or less of their gross monthly income.

Investors would receive payments and a guarantee that no modification would result in a mortgage worth less than the net-present value of the property.

In return, mortgage servicers, in addition to their annual servicing fees, received HAMP incentive payments to complete the modifications.

Each successful modification entitled the servicer from $1,200-2,000 depending on how long the mortgage was delinquent.

From the program’s start in 2009 through the second quarter of 2016, HAMP generated more than 1.6 million permanent modifications.

Defendants Ocwen Financial Corporation (“OFC”) and its subsidiary and alter ego Ocwen Loan Servicing (“OLS”) (collectively, “Ocwen” or “Ocwen Defendants”) were and/or are mortgage loan servicing agents for hundreds of trusts, for which Defendants

U.S. Bank, National Association, Trustee (“U.S. Bank”);

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Trustee (“Deutsche”);

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Trustee (“Wells”);

The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. f/k/a The Bank of New York Trust Company, National Association,

The Bank  of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York,

and

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation f/k/a The Bank of New York Company, Inc., Successor-Trustees (“BONY”) to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., (collectively, the “Trust Defendants”)

served as Trustees.

In 2009, Ocwen enrolled in the HAMP program.

On April 16, 2009, Ocwen expressly certified its compliance with HAMP guidelines and applicable federal laws in signing the initial Servicer Participation Agreement (“SPA”).

The SPA named Ocwen as the servicer and Fannie Mae, solely as Financial Agent of the United States, as the administrator.

The parties signed a Financial Instrument on the same day, which details the representations, warranties, and covenants that Ocwen is obligated to make in connection with participation in HAMP.

The Financial Instrument was fully incorporated into the SPA.

On February 10, 2010, Ocwen signed an Amended SPA. Ocwen also made annual certifications, a prerequisite to receiving HAMP payments.

Ocwen expressly represented in the SPAs and annual certifications that:

(1) it was in compliance with the terms and guidelines of HAMP;

(2) it was in compliance with all applicable laws and requirements;

(3) it created and maintained an effective HAMP program and committed the resources needed to employ enough trained, experienced personnel with the tools and technology necessary to provide quality service to homeowners;

and

(4) it had adequately documented and monitored its compliance and immediately reported to the Government any credible evidence of material violations of these certifications.

Each annual certification included an express statement certifying that Ocwen continued to meet the terms and conditions of the SPA, including the representation of compliance with applicable laws.

On July 15, 2019, Relator Jean-Marc Eichner (“Eichner”) and Relator Brandon Loyd (“Loyd”) (collectively, “Relators”) filed their Original Complaint under seal (Dkt. #1),

alleging causes of action for presenting false or fraudulent claims to the government,

making express and/or implied false certifications to the government,

making or using false records or statements material to false or fraudulent claims,

fraudulent inducement, and reverse false claims under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (a)(1)(G)

(Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 221-28).

More specifically, Relators allege various instances of misconduct that resulted in the Ocwen Defendants

violating the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”),

the Dodd-Frank Act,

the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”),

the Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practice Laws (“UDAAP” or “UDAP”),

the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”),

Regulation Z,

and

Texas state law

(see generally Dkt. #1).

Furthermore, Relators allege that the Ocwen Defendants made false representations to the government regarding HAMP, which induced the government to enter SPAs

(see generally Dkt. #1).

Additionally, Relators accuse the Trust Defendants as being vicariously liable for the actions of the Ocwen Defendants

(Dkt. #1 at ¶ 2).

On December 10, 2021, the government opted to not intervene in the case.

And, on December 14, 2021, the Court unsealed the case.

On May 6, 2022, Ocwen filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed because

(1) Eichner lacks standing because he signed a Separation Agreement and release after disclosing “substantially all information” to the government and before filing this lawsuit;

(2) of settlement, release, and res judicata based on the conclusion of the Fisher Action;

(3) of the public disclosure bar because of the Fisher Action, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) lawsuit and investigation, and the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program;

(4) of the government action bar because of the CFPB lawsuit;

(5) Relators fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b); (6) the statute of limitations;

(7) Relators fail to state a viable reverse false claims violation;

and

(8) Relators fail to state any claims in their individual capacity (Dkt. #40).

Ocwen’s motion also includes a motion for summary judgment because “the allegations in this case have been publicly disclosed, yet relators have not and cannot meet their burden to qualify as original sources for issues properly before the Court”

(Dkt. #40 at pp. 27-28).

Additionally, on May 6, 2022, the Trust Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing largely the same points as Ocwen

(Dkt. #48).

Specifically, the Trust Defendants argue that the lawsuit should be dismissed because of

(1) res judicata,

(2) the public disclosure bar,

(3) the government action bar,

(4) the first-to-file rule,

(5) the statute of limitations,

and

(6) Relators fail to plead trust liability as required by Rules 8(a) and 9(b)

(Dkt. #48).

On June 24, 2022, Relators filed responses to both motions (Dkt. #53; Dkt. #54). On July 29, 2022, the Ocwen Defendants and the Trust Defendants filed replies (Dkt. #59; Dkt. #61). And, on August 19, 2022, Relators filed sur-replies to both responses (Dkt. #64; Dkt. #65).

LEGAL STANDARD

I. 12(b)(1) Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the district court lacks statutory and constitutional power to adjudicate the case.

Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998).

If a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the Court will consider the jurisdictional attack under Rule 12(b)(1) before addressing any attack on the legal merits.

Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).

In deciding the motion, the Court may consider

“(1) the complaint alone;

(2) the complaint supplemented by the undisputed facts evidenced in the record;

or

(3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the [C]ourt’s resolution of disputed facts.”

Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008)

(quoting Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996)).

The Court will accept as true all well-pleaded allegations set forth in the complaint and construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Truman v. United States, 26 F.3d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 1994).

Once a defendant files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and challenges jurisdiction, the party invoking jurisdiction has the burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

See Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 1980).

The Court will grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only if it appears certain that the claimant cannot prove a plausible set of facts to support a claim that would entitle it to relief. Lane, 529 F.3d at 557.

II. 12(b)(6) Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that each claim in a complaint include a “short and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).

Each claim must include enough factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows a party to move for dismissal of an action when the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff’s complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012).

The Court may consider “the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached  to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.”

Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010).

The Court must then determine whether the complaint states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

“But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the [C]ourt to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]’-‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

In Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

First, the Court should identify and disregard conclusory allegations, for they are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664.

Second, the Court “consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.”

Id.

“This standard ‘simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary claims or elements.’”

Morgan v. Hubert, 335 Fed.Appx. 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

This evaluation will “be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

Thus, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”‘

Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

III. 9(b) Standard

Rule 9(b) states, “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.”

FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b).

Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement generally means that the pleader must set forth the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the fraud alleged.

United States ex rel. Williams v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 417 F.3d 450, 453 (5th Cir. 2005).

A plaintiff pleading fraud must “specify the statements contended to be fraudulent, identify the speaker, state when and where the statements were made, and explain why the statements were fraudulent.”

Herrmann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 302 F.3d 552, 564-65 (5th Cir. 2002).

The goals of Rule 9(b) are to “provide[] defendants with fair notice of the plaintiffs’ claims, protect[] defendants from harm to their reputation and goodwill, reduce[] the number of strike suits, and prevent[] plaintiffs from filing baseless claims.”

U.S. ex rel. Grubbs v. Kanneganti, 565 F.3d 180, 190 (5th Cir. 2009)

(citing Melder v. Morris, 27 F.3d 1097, 1100 (5th Cir. 1994)).

Courts are to read Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement in conjunction with Rule 8(a)’s insistence on simple, concise, and direct allegations.

Williams v. WMX Techs., Inc., 112 F.3d 175, 178 (5th Cir. 1997).

However, this requirement “does not ‘reflect a subscription to fact pleading.’”

Grubbs, 565 F.3d at 186.

“Claims alleging violations of the Texas Insurance Code and the DTPA and those asserting fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation are subject to the requirements of Rule 9(b).”

Frith v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 9 F.Supp.2d 734, 742 (S.D. Tex. 1998);

see Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., No. 3:08-CV-0248-B, 2010 WL 3422873, at *14 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2010)

(“‘[W]hen the parties have not urged a separate focus on the negligent misrepresentation claims,’ the Fifth Circuit has  found negligent misrepresentation claims subject to Rule 9(b) in the same manner as fraud claims.”).

Failure to comply with Rule 9(b)’s requirements authorizes the Court to dismiss the pleadings as it would for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

United States ex rel. Williams v. McKesson Corp., No. 3:12-CV-0371-B, 2014 WL 3353247, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 2014)

(citing Lovelace v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1017 (5th Cir. 1996)).

ANALYSIS

Relators bring this qui tam action pursuant to the False Claims Act (“FCA”). 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1).

“The [FCA] is designed to allow suits ‘by private parties on behalf of the United States against anyone submitting a false claim to the government.’”

United States ex rel. Fried v. W. Indep. Sch. Dist., 527 F.3d 439, 441 (5th Cir. 2008)

(quoting Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 941 (1997)).

The FCA “promot[es] private citizen involvement in exposing fraud against the government,” while “prevent[ing] parasitic suits by opportunistic late-comers who add nothing to the exposure of fraud.” Id. (quoting Reagan, 384 F.3d at 174).

Defendants collectively argue that there are ten reasons the Court should dismiss this case:

1. Eichner released his FCA claims in a separation agreement;

2. Relators’ FCA claims are barred by settlement, release, and res judicata;

3. Relators’ claims are subject to the public disclosure bar;

4. Relators’ claims are subject to the government action bar;

5. Relators’ post-Fisher claims do not state a viable claim under 12(b)(6) or 9(b);

6. Relators’ claims for earlier time periods are barred by statute of limitations;

7. Relators’ fail to plead a viable reverse false claims violation;

8. Relators’ do not have any viable individual claims;

9. Relators’ complaint does not plead trust liability as required by 9(b);

and

10. Relators’ fail to state a claim against BNYM Corp.

(Dkt. #40; Dkt. #48).

Because of the substantial overlap between Defendants’ motions to dismiss and Relators’ responses, the Court has considered all the briefing together.

The Court believes that several of Defendants’ arguments, although valid concerns, are best dealt with after the parties have had an opportunity to conduct discovery, develop the facts, and fully brief the issues under the requisite standard.

Issues best left for a later date include whether Eichner released his FCA claims pursuant to a separation agreement and whether some or all of Relators’ claims are barred by res judicata, the public disclosure bar, the government action bar, or the relevant statute of limitations.

The Court acknowledges that the Ocwen Defendants requested that the Court convert their motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and that the Ocwen Defendants briefed their motion to dismiss, at least partially, under a summary judgment standard.

The Court also acknowledges that all parties in this case submitted evidence outside of the pleadings for the Court’s consideration.

However, the Court believes that allowing parties the benefit of discovery and an opportunity to fully brief each issue under a summary judgment standard is appropriate and, therefore, the Court did not consider any evidence outside the pleadings and will not treat either motion as one for summary judgment.

Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Eichner’s claims under 12(b)(1) because Eichner allegedly lacks standing to bring this case.

This is a jurisdictional issue.

Relators, though, posit that discovery is necessary to determine whether Eichner sufficiently disclosed his allegations of fraud to the government at the time he signed the separation agreement, the scope of the separation agreement, and whether Eichner was actually permitted to have a lawyer review the separation agreement.

The Court can, and in this case will, permit parties to conduct discovery and be heard on the factual matters underlying jurisdiction before considering the jurisdictional question.

See Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 341-42 (5th Cir. 2009).

The party seeking discovery must show its necessity of discovery by alleging the specific facts which demonstrate a need for discovery.

Id.

Here, Relators have articulated a discrete discovery request that might cure the jurisdictional deficiency.

Accordingly, the question of whether Eichner has standing to sue is best dealt with after discovery on these issues has been conducted.

After such discovery, Defendants may re-raise the issue with the Court.

As to Defendants’ arguments that are appropriately dealt with in these motions to dismiss, after reviewing the current complaint and the arguments presented in briefing, the Court concludes that dismissal is not warranted.

Relators have stated plausible claims for relief against Defendants under both the 12(b)(6) and 9(b) standards.

CONCLUSION

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants U.S. Bank National Association’s, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. F/K/A The Bank of New York Trust Company, National Association’s, The Bank of New York Mellon F/K/A The Bank of New York’s, and The Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation F/K/A The Bank of New York Company’s Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Certain Trust Defendants (Dkt. #48) is hereby DENIED, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s and Ocwen Financial Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Relator’s Complaint (Dkt. #40) is hereby DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s and Ocwen Financial Corporation’s Motion to Strike the Boyd and Sanders Declarations Submitted by Relators in Response to Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. #60) is hereby DENIED as MOOT.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Motion Requesting an Oral Hearing (Dkt. #66) is hereby DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Federal Court Bailouts: The Troubling Connection Between PHH Mortgage Corp. and Judicial Corruption

The Southern District of Texas Houston Division’s Federal Court Scandals mount as this case presents a further example of Judicial Activism.

A Deep Dive into Farkas I (2011) and Farkas II (2016) Provide Fifth Circuit Foreclosure Paradoxes

A review of legal procedures in federal court foreclosure proceedings show selective application of the laws and glossed opinions.

Houston Federal Court’s Judicial Order Cloaks the Written Truth and Assaults Ailing Elder Widow

A true and accurate copy of the legal filings presented by Plaintiff has not been uploaded to the docket prior to release of latest order.

Drive-By Hit and Run: Judge Ewing Werlein Jr Defies Courts’ Own Precedent to Absurdly Invent Jurisdiction

The Southern District of Texas Houston Division’s Federal Court Scandals mount as this case presents a further example of Judicial Activism from the bench.

Legal Elder Abuse: Judicial Warfare, Hostility and Ham-Fisted Bullying in Bad Faith

The “Jones Romance Scandal” exemplifies a broader issue in the courthouse, revealing attempts to maintain invented jurisdiction in this case.

Candace Brooks Hires The Pope and The Lord Removes Her to a Higher Pulpit

It’s all BBQ and Brisket. Maybe Candace Brooks can get refinanced by former bankruptcy Chief Judge David R. Jones and his own legal BBQ team.

Dead or Alive Your Home is Wanted: PHH Onity and the Wolves take on 71 Year Old Bernice Atkins

Hilbert Arvie was a borrower under a loan agreement who died on or about April 11, 2022. Bernice Atkins is a borrower and co-mortgagor.

Svetlana Pestova and Luis Escobar aka Luis Vogar Sent to Mediation with Eric Carter

Another lawsuit filed by Svetlana Pestova which has been referred to mediation. This property has ties to the Rachel Gallegos article on LIT.

Svetlana Pestova, aka Pestova Holdings LLC n’ the Sealed Docket at Harris County District Court

This is one of several recent lawsuit filed where Svetlana Pestova is involved. Why did Judges Schaffer and Roth seal the original petition?

Warning: Lone Star Lawyer Marcella Hagger is a Creditor Rights Attorney and Foreclosure Defense Lawyer

The Controversial Path of Bounty Hunter and Lawyer Marcella Hagger: She Navigates Both Sides of Foreclosure with Changing Allegiances.

Deutsche Bank and PHH Mortgage Corp. Announce “Predatory Lending” is Not Recognized in Texas Courts

First, predatory lending has not been recognized as a cause of action in any court in Texas, says counsel Dykema, a Texas Foreclosure Mill.

Pro Se Vexatious Litigant Lou Tyler’s 8th Lawsuit in N.D. Texas Federal Court on Appeal to the Fifth Circuit

Is the law being applied equally in Texas courts? The Court should sua sponte dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice as barred by res judicata.

The Greatest Theft: Ocwen PHH Mortgage Premeditated Long-Term Scheme to Steal Citizens Homes
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top