United States District Court, E.D. New York
PEDRO YANES, DULCE ALVAREZ-CHEVEREZ, MICHAEL RAMSAY, JOEANN KELLY, RICARDO GOMEZ, DARRYL WEST, JORGE SANTIAGO, DARYLL HENRY, SANDRA BUCK, HORACIO ELMAN, JENNIFER BROOKS, BUDDY CLINE, CARL MALCHOW, ALPHONZO C. BYRD, AARON MATHIS, BONITA GOODMAN, CYNDRELL PARKER, DONALD R. SANDS, JR., ROBERT WAGNER, DENISE HOWARD, RONNIE DAVIS, SR., DARRYL QUEEN, MELVIN PEGUES, EDWIN ROMERO, DENISE D. FARLEY-RENKEL, LAVERNE ENGER, MARIA ELENA OSPINA, DIANA RODRIGUEZ, APRIL QUEROL, EDGAR CARABALLO, JOSE FIGUEROA, JACOB ECHEVARRIA, PATRICK O. KANE, GREGORY SERAFINI, KIM SMITH, KENNETH BYWATER, DENNIS MINTZ, BRENDA MINTZ, YOLETTE SZATKOWSKI, MELISSA CARDILLI, PATRICIA WHITE, LIZABETH FARLEY, DAMEIAN FLORES, KRYSTAL CAMPELL, BRETT ADAMS, BERNADETTE CHAPMAN, DAVE KRUSSOW, CLARENCE EVANS, JOHN ROES 1-100, and MARY JO ANDERSON, Plaintiffs,
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., individually and doing business as America's Servicing Company; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; M&T BANK CORPORATION; PNC BANK, N.A.; MORTGAGE INVESTORS CORP.; and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,  Defendants.
Michael E. Herskowitz, Esq., Michael Andrew Lehrman, Esq., The Hoffman Law Group, P.A., Brooklyn, NY. For Plaintiffs:
Brian M. Forbes, Esq., Robert Bruce Allensworth, Esq., Robert W. Sparkes, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, Boston, MA.
David S. Versfelt, Esq., Kirkpatrick Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP, New York, NY. For Defendants Ocwen:
Allison J. Schoenthal, Esq., Patrick Joseph Dempsey, Esq., Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP,
New York, NY. Wells Fargo
Esq., Santa Monica, CA. Bank of America
Scott Harris Kaiser, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, New York, NY.
Brian A. Herman, Esq., Katarzyna Mularczyk, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockuis, LLP, New York, NY. JPMorgan
S. Robert Schrager, Esq., Carmine Joseph Castellano, Esq., Hodgson Russ LLP,
New York, NY. M&T Bank
Caroline Kathryn Eisner, Esq., Matthew P. Previn, Esq., Richard Eric Gottlieb, Esq., Buckley Sandler LLP,
New York, NY. PNC Bank
Michael Y. Kieval, Esq., Jason Wayne McElroy, Esq., Weiner Brodsky Kider
PC, Washington, DC. Mortgage Investors
Bradley L. Mitchell, Esq., Constantine D. Pourakis, Esq., Stevens & Lee, P.C., New York, NY. Nationstar
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
JOANNA SEYBERT, District Judge.
Currently pending before the Court is a motion to sever and/or dismiss by defendants Bank of America, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; M&T Bank; Mortgage Investors Corp.; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; PNC Bank National Association; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively "Defendants"). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
This action was initially commenced on April 17, 2013 by fifty-four named plaintiffs and "John Roes 1-100" against thirteen defendants. Since then, various parties have been voluntarily dismissed. Presently remaining are claims by plaintiffs Pedro Yanes ("Yanes"), Dulce Alvarez-Cheverez, Michael Ramsay, Joeann Kelly, Ricardo Gomez, Darryl West, Jorge Santiago, Daryll Henry, Sandra Buck, Horacio Elman, Jennifer Brooks, Buddy Cline, Carl Malchow, Alphonzo C. Byrd, Aaron Mathis, Bonita Goodman, Cyndrell Parker, Donald R. Sands, Jr., Robert Wagner, Denise Howard, Ronnie Davis, Sr., Darryl Queen, Melvin Pegues, Edwin Romero, Denise D. Farley-Renkel, Laverne Enger, Maria Elena Ospina, Diana Rodriguez, April Querol, Edgar Caraballo, Jose Figueroa, Jacob Echevarria, Patrick O. Kane, Gregory Serafini, Kim Smith, Kenneth Bywater, Dennis Mintz, Brenda Mintz, Yolette Szatkowski, Melissa Cardilli, Patricia White, Lizbeth Farley, Dameian Flores, Krystal Campbell, Brett Adams, Bernadette Chapman, Dave Krussow, Clarence Evans, Mary Jo Anderson, and John Roes 1-100 (collectively "Plaintiffs") against Defendants as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs are homeowners who assert that Defendants committed various "illegal" acts in the creation and servicing of their home mortgage loans. (See generally Am. Compl., Docket Entry 60.) Plaintiffs allege that, during the origination of their loans, Defendants offered terms that Plaintiffs would not have accepted had it not been for Defendants' misrepresentations. (Am. Compl. ¶ 33.) Moreover, Defendants did not require sufficient financial documentation, and ultimately provided mortgages unsuitable to Plaintiffs' incomes. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 37, 39.)
Although Defendants offered various types of loans, they did not convey the long-term consequences of those loans to Plaintiffs. (Am. Compl. ¶ 43.) For example, Defendants "marginalized" the consequences of negatively amortized loans, downplaying the difficulties of refinancing and the increased amount of principal. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-45.) Despite the disadvantages of certain loans to homeowners, Defendants encouraged their personnel to market them due to the financial benefits they stood to gain. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 46-49.) ...