1 I. · 2013. 8. 31. · individual residing in Laguna Niguel, California. 15. Decedent was a...

CORRECTED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co Americas SACV11-0006-JVS (RNBx)

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. Jurisdiction and Venue ..................................................................... 1

II. Parties ................................................................................................ 1

III. General Factual Allegations on the HAMP Modifications ............. 3

IV. Factual Allegations Pertaining to Each Named Plaintiff .............. 12

1. Steve Burke ............................................................................ 12

2. Richard Apostolos .................................................................. 16

3. Joanne Anderson ..................................................................... 19

4. Lise Johnson-Grimble ............................................................. 24

5. B.J. and Brianna Stone ............................................................ 27

6. Darrell Grimble ....................................................................... 28

7. Angela Brown ......................................................................... 28

8. Chen Pi ................................................................................... 31

9. Robert H. Rhoades .................................................................. 34

10. Nicole Rhoades ....................................................................... 36

11. Jeremy John Dale .................................................................... 37

12. Cora-Jean Dale ....................................................................... 39

13. Alice Mbaabu ......................................................................... 41

14. Maurice Mbaabu ..................................................................... 42

V. Class Action Allegations ................................................................. 43

1. Class A ................................................................................... 43

2. Class B.................................................................................... 43

VI. Causes of Action/Claims ................................................................. 46

1. Negligence .............................................................................. 46

2. Wrongful Death ...................................................................... 50

3. IIED ........................................................................................ 51

4. Fraud ...................................................................................... 52



3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. Rosenthal Act Violations ........................................................ 55

6. Business & Professions Code § 17200 Violations ................... 58

7. FAL § 17500 Violations ......................................................... 61

8. Aiding and Abetting UCL Violations ...................................... 64

VII. Prayer .............................................................................................. 65

VIII. Demand for Jury Trial ................................................................... 66



1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, bring this action against Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Nationstar

Mortgage, LLC (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege the

following on information and belief, except as to those allegations which pertain to the

named Plaintiffs:

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 USC § 1331

wherein the action arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States

and/or under 28 USC § 1332 wherein this is a class action over $5,000,000.00 where at

least one plaintiff is diverse from one defendant.

2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this action by the fact

that the Defendants are conducting business in the state of California.

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1392 because the action

involves real property located in the Central District of California and a substantial part

of the events or omissions on which the claims are based occurred in this District.

The Parties

4. Plaintiffs Lise Johnson-Grimble, an individual on her own behalf and on behalf of

her minor child B.J. (the “Johnsons,” “plaintiff,” or “borrowers”) were residing in

Corona, California, at all relevant times during this complaint.

5. Plaintiff B.J. is the minor child of Lise Johnson-Grimble.

6. Plaintiff Brianna Stone is the daughter of Lise Johnson-Grimble. She was residing

with her mother in Corona, California at all relevant times alleged this complaint.

7. Plaintiff Darrell Grimble is the husband of Lise Johnson-Grimble and was residing

with his wife (then fiancé) Lise Johnson-Grimble in Corona, California, during the

foreclosure of the plaintiff’s home, as alleged in this complaint.



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8. Plaintiff Chen Pi, (the “Pi’s,” “plaintiff,” or “borrowers”) acting on her own behalf

and as trustee for the Pi Trust dated May 17, 2004 resided in La Puente California, at all

relevant times in alleged this complaint.

9. Plaintiff Robert H. Rhoades (“Rhoades,” “plaintiff,” or “borrower”) is married to

Nicole Rhoades, and were a couple residing in Chino, California, at all relevant times

alleged in this complaint.

10. Plaintiff Nicole Rhoades (“plaintiff”) is married to Robert H. Rhoades and

was residing in Chino, California, at all relevant times alleged in this complaint.

11. Plaintiff Steve Burke (the “Burkes,” “plaintiff,” or “borrowers”) is an adult

residing in Paradise, California, at all relevant times alleged in this complaint.

12. Plaintiff Angela Brown (the “Browns,” “plaintiff,” or “borrowers”) is an

individual residing in Stockton, California, at all relevant times alleged in this

complaint.

13. Plaintiff Richard Apostolos (the “Apostolos’,” “plaintiff,” or “borrowers”)

was an individual residing in Perris, California, at all relevant times alleged in this

complaint.

14. Plaintiff Joanne Anderson (the “Andersons,” “plaintiff,” or “borrowers”) on

behalf of herself and as heir to the Estate of Elliot (“Decedent”), now deceased, is an

individual residing in Laguna Niguel, California.

15. Decedent was a resident of Orange County, California. Joanne Anderson is

also suing on behalf of the Estate of Elliot Berd.

16. Plaintiffs Jeremy John Dale (the “Dales,” “plaintiff,” or “borrowers”) is an

individual that was residing in Paynes Creek, California.

17. Plaintiff Cora-Jean Dale (the “Dales,” “plaintiff” ) is an individual that was

residing in Paynes Creek, California.

18. Plaintiff Alice Mbaabu was an individual residing in Fontana, California.



3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19. Plaintiff Maurice Mbaabu was an individual residing in Fontana, California.

20. Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC (“Aurora” or “loan servicer”) is

headquartered in Littleton, Colorado and regularly conducts business in the state of

California.

21. Aurora was acting as a subsidiary of Aurora Bank, FSB (“Aurora Bank”)

at all times mentioned herein and these loans were assigned back to Aurora Bank.

22. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar” and/or “servicer”)

principal place of business is located in Texas, and regularly conducts business in the

state of California.

23. In July 2012, Aurora assigned approximately 85% of its loan servicing pool

to Nationstar.

24. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that each defendant is

responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this complaint, and that

plaintiff’s damages were proximately caused by the agents, principals, servants, master,

representatives, and/or employees of Aurora, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged

were acting in the scope of their authority as the agents, servants, master,

representatives, and/or employees of Aurora, and with Aurora’s knowledge, permission,

consent or ratification of their actions.

Factual Allegations

General Factual Allegations on the HAMP Modifications

25. The collapse of the housing market in 2008 triggered a devastating wave of

foreclosures. The Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) was designed to

stem the foreclosure crisis by providing affordable mortgage loan modifications.

26. Aurora, which serviced a portfolio of approximately $77 billion in

residential mortgage loans when the crisis began, became a participating servicer in the

HAMP program on April 30, 2009.



4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27. Aurora used the HAMP program as a means to obtain illegitimate profits

from distressed homeowners.

28. Aurora would take financial information from the borrower over the

telephone, inform them that they were eligible for a loan modification under the HAMP

program, and then inform the borrower seeking a loan modification under the HAMP

program that they must default on their loan in order to secure a loan modification.

29. This intended to induce and did induce the borrowers and those similarly to

default which would then put Aurora in the position of being able to foreclose on their

property.

30. The HAMP program was designed in such way that required the servicer to

promptly and accurately process the borrower’s Making Home Affordable (“MHA”)

loan application request and offer a permanent modification within three months or

provide a basis for a denial within the same three month time period.

31. Aurora unreasonably delayed the loan modification process beyond the

three month time period, for up to two years, in some cases.

32. Here, the plaintiffs and the Class were actually placed in temporary HAMP

agreements or Workout Agreements under the guise of the HAMP program, and

although the plaintiffs and the Class made the temporary plan payments (“TPP”) as

requested, they were not given a permanent modification of their loans or even a denial

to dispute within the initial three month period.

33. Aurora delayed the process.

34. Aurora led the plaintiffs and the Class to believe that they would have the

opportunity to cure their default, but no matter how much they paid the defendants each

month or what they signed, it never happened and they were kept in constant foreclosure

status the entire time while doling out money and their private financial information to

the defendants.



5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35. Aurora had only modified approximately 2,500 loans by the time this

lawsuit was filed.

36. The delay in processing the loan modifications caused charges, fees and

arrearages to escalate to a point where the plaintiffs could not cure the default.

37. Some homeowners had their homes sold at foreclosure before they received

a denial or determination on their loan modification application.

38. Other homeowners received modification offers that did not put them back

in the same position that they would have been if Aurora had offered the modification

within the initial three month period, which would only lead to a re-default or recast the

homeowner into a life time renter.

39. Other homeowners continue to face imminent foreclosure without receiving

a fair opportunity to modify their loan.

40. Other homeowners had their homes “sold” during the modification process

and then Aurora after the “sale” would put them through the same modification process

again – take more money and – foreclose – again.

41. The individual borrowers actions and/or failure to act, financial

circumstances, and other factors just could not affect the process or the outcome.

42. Aurora’s foreclosure process disguised as a loan modification process was

an impenetrable force.

43. Simply put, the loan modification promised by Aurora was illusory because

the borrowers could never actually obtain the modification, and in the meantime the

borrowers accumulated such arrearages that they ended up worse off than if they had

never sought a modification at all.

44. The delay was the direct and proximate result of Aurora’s negligent

processing of the loan modifications.

45. Defendants previously declared that there were between 10,000 to 150,000



6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

similarly situated borrowers Aurora was servicing.

46. Assuming the named plaintiffs payments are representative of the class, that

would mean Aurora has been able to extract on average $27,091.53 per home owner

which is approximately $270,915,260.00 to $4,063,728,900.00 ($4 billion) during this

unreasonably delayed modification promise that ended up being illusory.

47. As a direct and proximate consequence of Aurora’s actions and/or failure to

act, the borrowers suffered financial and emotional distress.

48. Aurora knew or had reason to know that its illusory promises and

unreasonable delay would cause financial and emotional distress to the borrowers.

49. On May 16, 2008, Stephanie Armour reported on the type of financial and

emotional distress foreclosures were causing in USA Today

Crisis hotlines are reporting a surge in calls from frantic

homeowners. The American Psychological Association (APA)

and other mental-health groups are publishing tips on how to

handle the emotional stress triggered by the real estate

meltdown. Psychologists say they're seeing more drinking,

domestic violence and marital problems linked to mortgage

concerns — as well as children trying to cope with extreme

anxiety when their families are forced to move.

50. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics published a brief on

Foreclosure and Health Status in 2010.

51. That study observed foreclosure is associated with high rates of major

depression, hypertension, and heart disease. Moreover, homeowners behind on their

payments or facing foreclosure reported poorer mental and physical health than renters

or other homeowners.

52. Princeton University economist Janet Currie, also performed an economic



7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

study which was published in 2011 by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The

study proved a link between high home foreclosure rates and elevated physical and

mental health conditions that are known to be caused by stress.

53. The study focused on four states hit hardest by the economic crisis: Florida,

California, Arizona and New Jersey. It compared foreclosure rates with emergency

room visits, and found a notable increase in hospital admissions for a variety of stress-

related health conditions including hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, malaise, and even

suicide attempts.

54. The federal government recognized this and on 11/19/10 the OCC supplied

the following written testimony:

“HAMP guidelines now preclude the servicer from initiating a

foreclosure action until the borrower has been determined to be

ineligible for a HAMP modification.” [emphasis added]

55. Prior to that time it was industry standard to attempt to modify before

foreclosing and the California state Legislature took the policy and enacted laws and

procedures to encourage the process prior to foreclosure as early as 2008.

56. Despite various industry standards, state statutes, and national guidelines,

rules and regulations, Aurora continued its business practice of advising the homeowner

that they had to default on their loan before they could offer the loan modification, then

unreasonably delayed in processing the loan modifications in violation of the HAMP

guidelines as interpreted by the OCC.

57. On 4/13/11 the OTS issued a Consent “cease and desist” order against

Aurora finding, in part:

a. In connection with certain foreclosures of loans in its residential

mortgage servicing portfolio, [Aurora] engaged in the following

unsafe or unsound practices:



8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b. failed to devote sufficient financial, staffing and managerial

resources to ensure proper administration of its foreclosure

processes;

c. failed to devote to its foreclosure processes adequate oversight,

internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance risk

management, internal audit, third party management, and training;

and

d. failed sufficiently to oversee outside counsel and other third-party

providers handling foreclosure-related services.

58. The OTS was integrated into the OCC in July 2011.

59. Aurora continued its business practice of advising the homeowner that they

had to default on their loan before they could offer the loan modification, then

unreasonably delayed in processing the loan modifications in violation of the HAMP

guidelines as interpreted by the OCC.

60. On or about July 15, 2012 Aurora transferred its servicing rights to

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC.

61. Nationstar adopted Aurora’s practices.

62. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC continued the same pattern and practice of

denying a permanent modification to those homeowners who made their plan payments.

63. Aurora and Nationstar continued to be negligent by failing to review the

Plaintiffs’ loan modification request in good faith and to conform to standards of

conduct in the industry to protect the Plaintiffs against further losses associated with



9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

their loans.

64. The Making Home Affordable Guidelines (“MHA”) clearly state that when

a servicer failed to modify within the initial three month period, the borrower’s loan

that:

a. should have been converted to a permanent modification, but for

reasons beyond his or her control was not timely converted to a

permanent modification…

b. [T]he servicer must offer the borrower a permanent HAMP

modification as soon as possible…

c. The permanent HAMP modification offered must put the

borrower in the same position as he or she would have been if

the servicer converted the borrower to a permanent modification

in accordance with the program requirements. (MHA 9.5.1; see

also 9.5.2)

65. The process of foreclosing while considering a borrower for a loan

modification is called “dual tracking” in the loan servicing industry.

66. Effective January 1, 2013, the California State Legislature enacted the

California Homeowners Bill of Rights to ensure, in part, that borrowers are entitled to

an injunction pursuant to California Homeowners Bill of Rights when a servicer

continues to dual-track.

67. Yet, Nationstar continued to dual-track by foreclosing while a loan

modification application was still pending review.

68. In essence, the defendants continue to violate various state and federal

mandates to make misrepresentations (fraud); and act or fail to act (negligence and UCL



10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fraudulent conduct) for profit at the harm of the borrower.

69. After obtaining the agreements with Fannie Mae and the California

Commissioner, the defendants used the guise of offering these “Programs” to lure

homeowners into default, drag out the process and confuse the homeowners on the type

of alternative temporary program they were placing the homeowner in, just to make a

larger profit for itself.

70. As part of this scheme defendant Aurora advertised their loss mitigation

program (e.g. loan modification through TPP, and workout agreements aka special

forbearance plans):

a. will avoid the loss of your home through foreclosure or further

impairment on your credit.”

71. Aurora would then solicit the borrower to call for qualification.

72. The borrower would then call into Aurora and Aurora would tell them based

on their financial information that the borrower provided over the phone that they

qualified for a loan modification but that they had to miss three payments first in order

to enter into the program.

73. Shortly thereafter the borrower would receive a document from Aurora that

reaffirmed the need to default:

a. “Based upon the information that you provided during your

telephone conversation with Aurora, your loan may qualify for

a loan modification…You must provide documents to support

your inability to reinstate the mortgage loan in one lump

sum…”

74. However, the letter itself never contained the HAMP application with the

list of documents to send in, so the borrower would do as instructed and miss the three

payments.



11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

75. After the borrower missed their payments, Aurora would initiate nonjudicial

foreclosure proceedings and then send a workout agreement or a TPP, of which the

latter said:

a. HOME AFFORDABLE MODIFICATION TRIAL PERIOD

PLAN

b. (Step One of Two-Step Documentation Process)

76. On the first page of the TPP, first sentence it stated:

a. “If I am in compliance with this Trial Period Plan (the “Plan”)

and my representations in Section 1 continue to be true in all

material respects, then the Lender will provide me with a

Home Affordable Modification Agreement (“Modification

Agreement”), as set forth in Section 3, that would amend and

supplement (1) the Mortgage on the Property, and (2) the Note

secured by the Mortgage.”

77. The plans required several payments, the borrower would sign and return

the plan and make the payments but never obtained notification of a permanent

modification within the first three months or a denial.

78. Instead Aurora unreasonably delayed the modification process where the

borrowers arrearages became so large that they could not cure their default.

79. However, the borrower hung on in the hopes of a modification and Aurora

encouraged that hope by sending other notices coaxing them into continuing to make

payments.

80. Those notices read in part:

a. “Our records indicate that you have successfully made several

payments in accordance with your home retention payment



12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

arrangement. Based on your performance under the payment

arrangement, we would like to offer you a more permanent

home retention option.”

81. However, no permanent home retention option aka loan modification was

timely or accurately offered so the plaintiffs kept making payments as they got further in

debt while facing imminent foreclosure.

82. Plaintiff alleges defendants intended to, did and still continue to use these

Programs to manipulate more money from the Plaintiffs and the Class warranting

damages, restitution and/or injunctive relief.

83. As a direct and proximate result of Aurora’s actions and/or failure to timely

act, the plaintiffs were financially and emotionally distressed.

84. For those that have not yet lost their homes or possession, injunctive relief is

warranted.

85. These factual general allegations apply equally to all named plaintiffs, and

the specific factual allegations below are meant to highlight the practice as it applies to

each named plaintiff.

86. The allegations below do not necessarily represent the entirety of Aurora’s

practice as to each named plaintiff so specifically pled.

Factual Allegations Pertaining to Each Named Plaintiff

STEVE BURKE

87. Plaintiff Steve Burke refinanced his home located at 5871 Pine Circle,

Paradise, CA for $190,000.00 on August 8, 2005 which he bought in 2000 and has

always occupied.

88. He is a C-6 Finish Contractor whose business was called Ostreet Trim and

Cabinet Installations.

89. He dutifully made his monthly payments.



13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

90. In May of 2008 Mr. Burke’s business was directly affected by the housing

slow down.

91. Mr. Burke was further affected by news from Florida that his mother was

diagnosed with dementia and he relocated her to become her primary caretaker.

assumed this roll in June of 2008 by moving his mother from Florida to California and

has been P.O.A. since October 2008.

92. Since that time he has also taken in two young children that are related

through the foster care program whom he cares for.

93. The crash in the housing market decreased his annual income along with

his new role as caretaker.

94. Aurora sent Plaintiff a notice advertising Aurora had several programs

that

a. “will avoid the loss of your home through foreclosure or

further impairment on your credit.”

95. Plaintiff called the phone number on Aurora’s notice in 2008 to see if he

could receive a loan modification as advertised.

96. Aurora took his financial information over the telephone and told him that

he qualified for a loan modification but that first he had to miss three mortgage

payments.

97. Shortly after the telephone interview, Aurora sent plaintiff a follow up

letter:





sum…”



14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

98. So Plaintiff missed his monthly mortgage payment so he would obtain a

loan modification.

99. On September 17, 2008 Aurora initiated nonjudicial foreclosure

proceedings and caused a Notice of Default to be recorded in the County Recorder’s

office purporting Mr. Burke owed $6,312.74 as of September16, 2008.

100. After the foreclosure was initiated, Aurora Loan Services sent Plaintiff a

Workout Agreement requesting an initial payment of $1,500.00 and 2 more payments

of $1,790.00 per month with a balloon at the end that Mr. Burke could not pay.

101. Plaintiff made the three monthly payments of $1,500.00, $1,790.00 and

$1,790.00.

102. Instead of modifying Plaintiff’s loan, Aurora sent a second Workout

Agreement dated April 21, 2009 requesting four payments of $837.00 with a large

balloon at the end.

103. Mr. Burke paid the monthly payments, but, again, could not pay the large

balloon payment.

104. Then on December 26, 2009 Aurora offered a HAMP TPP requesting 3

payments of $868.09 per month.

105. It was captioned in big bold letters on the top of the page as a:


PLAN








15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





107. Plaintiff made all three payments to Aurora.

108. Mr. Burke did not receive a loan modification or denial of modification

after his TPP plan ended so he called the customer service department at Aurora and

asked about the status of his loan modification when his plan ended.

109. Aurora asked him to continue making payments in the same amount as the

plan and he did so in May 2010.

110. Instead of sending Plaintiff a permanent modification, Aurora sent

Plaintiff another Workout Agreement dated May 28, 2010 which requested Mr. Burke

make six monthly payments of $1,197.00.

111. Mr. Burke made the six monthly plan payments to Aurora as requested

plus an additional $1,197.00 payment that Aurora cashed and accepted.

112. In total he paid Aurora $20,279.00 while facing imminent foreclosure on a

modest $190,000.00 loan from January 2009 through December 2010 before he was

finally denied.

113. He was denied on the grounds that taking care of his mother was not a

hardship.

114. Although Mr. Burke was still taking care of his mother, on August 22,

2011 Aurora offered Mr. Burke yet another TPP under HAMP requesting $715.48

every month for three months starting on October 1, 2011.

115. Plaintiff also received letters of assurance which encouraged him to keep

sending payments while facing imminent foreclosure by stating in part




16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





116. Aurora failed to act in an efficient, honest, and timely manner. As a

result, Mr. Burke paid approximately $20,279.00 to Aurora from January 2009

through to January 2011 in an attempt to save his home where his home loan debt kept

getting bigger and bigger making it impracticable if not impossible to reinstate the

loan after eventual denial of his modification application.

117. Mr. Burke was eventually offered a modification but it did not conform to

the MHA guidelines in that it was not a loan modification that made his home more

affordable. The modification did not put him back in the same position he would have

been if Aurora has offered the modification within three months after his first Plan

payments started, when HAMP was initiated in 2009.

118. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit and those similarly situated received these

same Notices from Aurora and were inflicted with the same financial and emotional

distress even if not so specifically alleged under the name.

RICHARD APOSTOLOS

119. Plaintiff Richard Apostolos refinanced his home for $492,300.00 on August

6, 2007. The loan was secured by a deed of trust recorded against his home located

21200 Mountain Ave, Perris, CA 92570 which he previously bought in 2004 that he

occupied with his family.

120. He was a carpentry subcontractor and converted a building on his land into

his shop for work.

121. Mr. Apostolos dutifully made all of his monthly mortgage payments until

2009 when the construction industry business dried up due to the national housing



17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

crisis and the crash of the economy.


that:



123. Plaintiff called the phone number on Aurora’s notice in early 2009 to see

if he could receive a loan modification under the HAMP program.


he qualified for a loan modification under HAMP but that first he had to miss three

mortgage payments.


letter:


telephone conversation with Aurora, your loan may qualify

for a loan modification…You must provide documents to

support your inability to reinstate the mortgage loan in one

lump sum…”

126. Mr. Apostolos, upon his parents advice, refused to miss the three monthly

mortgage payments so Aurora refused to allow Plaintiff to apply for HAMP.

127. Mr. Apostolos struggled prior to default and paid Aurora $3,800.00 on

1/28/10, $1,900.00 on 3/10/10; $1,900.00 on 4/09/10 and kept calling Aurora asking

for his HAMP modification application package.

128. Although there was no Notice of Default recorded on Mr. Apostolos’

property, Aurora rejected and returned his payment of $1,900.00 on 4/09/10 and

instructed him to stop making payments and he would have to wait to start a new



18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

program.

129. Since Aurora rejected plaintiff’s payments, Plaintiff went into default and

he was offered a HAMP TPP.



PLAN










132. The HAMP TPP Aurora offered to him in August 2010 requested five

payments of $3,428.00 each month instead of the three payments proscribed by

HAMP.

133. Plaintiff made all six plan payments of $7,200, $3,500, $3,450, $3,450,

$3,450, and $3,450 which ended on January 6, 2011.

134. When the TPP plan ended, he called the customer service department at

Aurora and inquired about the status of his modification.

135. The customer service department at Aurora told him to continue to make

the lesser payments as listed in the plan because he was still being considered for a

modification.



19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28








137. After Mr. Apostolos’ obligation under the first plan ended, Aurora Loan

Services, LLC had the duty to either deny Mr. Apostolos and foreclose or offer a

modification. Instead, Aurora Loan Services, LLC dragged him through a process of

over a year before he was finally denied.

138. As plaintiff paid $32,100.00 to ALS in an attempt to save his home, the

arrearages on his home loan debt kept getting bigger and bigger due to the predatory

nature of his loan and the added charges, making it impracticable if not impossible to

reinstate the loan after eventual denial of his modification application.

139. Plaintiff then started making monthly mortgage payments and put them in

trust until his dispute over modification was resolved.

140. Aurora took plaintiffs home at foreclosure and dispossessed him out of his

home.

141. Aurora’s actions and/or failure to act also caused Plaintiff financial and

emotional distress.

JOANNE ANDERSON

142. Plaintiff Joanne Anderson bought her home that is subject of this dispute in

February 2002 and she has occupied it since that date.

143. She obtained a $650,000.00 loan on July 26, 2007 that was secured by a

deed of trust recorded against her home located at 24291 Park Place Drive, Laguna



20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Niguel, California 92677. Said deed of trust was recorded against the subject property

in the Official Records in Orange County, California.

144. Ms. Anderson dutifully paid her monthly mortgage payments under the

Deed of Trust.

145. Plaintiff and her domestic partner worked as realtors but they lost their

major client in 2009 during the housing market crash.


that



147. Plaintiff called the phone number on Aurora’s notice in early 2009 to see

if she could receive a loan modification under the HAMP program.

148. Aurora took her financial information over the telephone and told her that

she qualified for a loan modification under HAMP but that first she had to miss three

mortgage payments.


letter:





sum…”

150. However, no TPP plan followed.

151. She missed three mortgage payments and on September 14, 2009 a Notice

of Default was recorded purporting Ms. Anderson owed $10,842.12 as of



21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

September11, 2009, initiating the nonjudicial foreclosure process in California.

152. After Aurora initiated foreclosure, Aurora sent Plaintiff a Temporary

Payment Plan (“TPP”) in December 2009, which obligated her to pay Aurora

$1,998.00 per month for 3 months, which she paid starting in January 2010.



PLAN










155. Plaintiff made all of the TPP plan payments.

156. When the TPP plan ended, she called the customer service department at

Aurora and inquired about the status of her modification.

157. The customer service department at Aurora told her to continue to make

the lesser payments as listed in the plan because she was still being considered for a

modification.

158. Plaintiff also received letters of assurance which encouraged her to keep





22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





159. As a result, Plaintiff continued to make the lesser monthly payments of

$1,998.00 to Aurora although she was facing imminent foreclosure.

160. Instead of receiving a permanent modification, Plaintiff received a

Workout Agreement for July 2010 which requested $1,287.83 for three months.

161. Ms. Anderson paid Aurora $1,287.83 per month as requested under the

new plan.

162. When the Workout Agreement ended, she called the customer service

department at Aurora and inquired about the status of her modification.



modification.

164. As a result, Ms. Anderson continued to make the lesser payments to

Aurora although she was facing imminent foreclosure.

165. Then in 2011, Aurora sent Plaintiff a letter denying her modification and

informing her that they intended to sell her home at foreclosure.

166. She then sought Chapter 13 protection wherein she has been paying

Aurora $2,959.39 per month from February 2011 through 2012.

167. Plaintiff paid Aurora approximately $37,491.32 under one plan or another

trying to get her loan modification.

168. The amount due to cure recorded on the notice of default dated 9/14/09

was $10,842.12.

169. Anderson paid ALS $19,004.81 on the TPP.



23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

170. Her TPP called for $1,998.00 per month for 3 months which she paid

starting January 2010.

171. Aurora dragged out the modification process for another year without a

decision and she kept paying under the plan.

172. As plaintiff paid $37,491.32 to ALS from January 2010 onward in an

attempt to save her home, the arrearages on her home loan debt kept getting bigger

and bigger due to the predatory nature of her loan and the added charges, making it

impracticable if not impossible to reinstate the loan after eventual denial of her

modification application.

173. Plaintiff is also suing as heir and on behalf of her domestic partner,

decedent, Elliot Berd.

174. Aurora was using Elliot Berd’s income to qualify Ms. Anderson for the

loan modification under HAMP.

175. After enduring the long and stressful modification process from 2009 to

2011, Mr. Berd was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma (lung cancer).

176. Plaintiff informed Aurora of this event but Aurora continued to

unreasonably delay the modification causing Mr. Berd stress which exacerbated his

condition and he died in 2012 while waiting for the loan modification process to

finish.

177. Plaintiff Joanne Anderson has lost the security, comfort, support, care and

affection of Elliot Berd as a result.

178. Aurora failed to act in an efficient, honest, and timely manner.

179. As a result, plaintiff, and her family members were financially and

emotionally distressed.



24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LISE JOHNSON-GRIMBLE

180. Plaintiff Lise Johnson-Grimble was married to Anthony Johnson and they

had four children.

181. He was a real estate developer and she was a real estate agent and mother

of four children.

182. When the real estate market crashed, the plaintiff and her husband filed

for divorce and Plaintiff opened up a day care in her home.

183. During their divorce in 2009, the family law judge awarded Lise Johnson-

Grimble title to their home located at 382 Minaret Street, Corona, California 92881

which they acquired during marriage.

184. The title to the property was assigned to Lise Johnson-Grimble.

185. Prior to the divorce, a loan of $500,000.00 was secured by a deed of trust

recorded on the home in the name of Anthony Johnson.

186. However, Aurora Loan Services, LLC refused to modify the loan or deal

with Lise Johnson as the borrower who assumed the mortgage. Instead she had to

obtain a power of attorney from Anthony Johnson in an attempt to get a modification

under his name.

187. Plaintiff obtained the power of attorney as requested.


that



189. Plaintiff called the phone number on Aurora’s notice to see if she could

receive a loan modification under the HAMP program.




25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


mortgage payments.


letter:





sum…”


193. She missed three mortgage payments and on March 9, 2009 a Notice of

Default was recorded purporting Plaintiff owed $11,577.24 as of March 6, 2009,

initiating the nonjudicial foreclosure process in California.

194. After Aurora initiated foreclosure, Aurora sent Plaintiff a Workout

Agreement dated April 8, 2009 requesting an initial payment of $3,231.00 and

monthly payments for four additional months which Ms. Johnson paid.





modification.

197. As a result, Plaintiff continued to make the lesser payments to Aurora

although she was facing imminent foreclosure.

198. Instead of sending Plaintiff a permanent modification, Aurora sent

Plaintiff another Workout Agreement dated June 11, 2010 requesting she make 6



26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

monthly payments of $1,584.00 plus an initial deposit of $3,043.87 from 6/18/10 to

12/18/10 which she paid as requested.

199. Plaintiff made all payments under the plan.

200. When the plan ended, she called the customer service department at

Aurora and inquired about the status of her modification.



modification.








203. As a result, Plaintiff continued to make the lesser monthly payments to

Aurora although she was facing imminent foreclosure.

204. In total she paid $25,471.87 on a modest loan from May 2009 through

December 2010 before she was finally denied on August 22, 2011 on the purported

basis that since the court awarded her the home in the divorce in 2009 it was not

“owner occupied” and that they did not have to deal with her, they were only allowing

her to pay off Mr. Johnson’s loan.

205. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that this very late

coming denial violates the Garn St. Germaine Act which prohibits the exercise of a

"due on subsection (d) Exemption of specified transfers or dispositions…a lender may

not exercise its option pursuant to a due-on-sale clause upon (7) a transfer resulting



27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from a decree of a dissolution of marriage, legal separation agreement, or from an

incidental property settlement agreement, by which the spouse of the borrower

becomes an owner of the property; or (9) any other transfer or disposition described in

regulations prescribed by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.”

206. Plaintiff paid approximately $25.471.87 to Aurora Loan Services, LLC

from May 2009 through to January 2011 in an attempt to save her home where her

home loan debt kept getting bigger and bigger making it impracticable if not

impossible to reinstate the loan after eventual denial of his modification application.

207. Aurora Loan Services sold her home at foreclosure in 2011 and

dispossessed the plaintiff and her family.

208. As a result of Aurora actions and failure to act, plaintiff was financially

and emotionally distressed.

209. Ms. Johnson is a minority and is a member of a Constitutionally protected

class.

B.J. AND BRIANNA STONE

210. Plaintiff had four children, two of which, were living at home during this

time period.

211. Brianna Stone suffered severe emotional distress from Aurora’s actions

and/or failure to act and loss of her mother’s companionship and time.

212. Plaintiff, Lise Johnson-Grimble is also suing on behalf of her minor child

B.J. who was living with her during the foreclosure process.

213. Aurora used the family members during the loan modification application

process in order to qualify for a loan modification under HAMP.

214. Letters and flyers would come in the mail and placed on the door warning

of the multiple foreclosure sale dates that Aurora had set throughout the modification

process they unreasonably delayed which Brianna and B.J. saw and read.



28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

215. B.J. and Brianna could hear their mom talking about the foreclosure and

trying to get sale dates postponed with Aurora on the phone.

216. B.J. and Brianna saw their mom staying up to the middle of the night

working on papers trying to save the home.

217. B.J. and Brianna no longer had a mom that could devote the same amount

of time and attention as their mom did before the loan went into default ( as instructed

by Aurora).

218. The very knowledge that B.J. and Brianna (as dependent children) were

losing their home was very frightening to them and caused extreme emotional distress.

219. B.J. and Brianna were afraid that the sheriffs may come in the middle of

the night and evict them as seen and heard in the media.

220. As a direct and proximate consequence of Aurora’s actions and failure to

act, B.J. and Brianna suffered from severe emotional distress.

DARRELL GRIMBLE

221. During the foreclosure, Darrell Grimble was also living with Plaintiff Lise

Johnson-Grimble as her fiancé.

222. Mr. Grimble worked in the financial industry and became very frustrated

and distressed in attempting to assist his fiancé with her modification.

223. He was shocked and distressed at the prolonged delay in the modification

process and constantly worried that Aurora would sell the home before Aurora

completed the modification process.

224. The stress continued throughout the entire foreclosure process.

225. As a direct and proximate consequence of Aurora’s actions and failure to

act, Darrell Grimble suffered from severe emotional distress.

ANGELA BROWN

226. Plaintiff ANGELA BROWN is an employee for the State of California at



29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Department of Motor Vehicles.

227. She lives at 4516 Abruzzi Circle, Stockton, CA 95206.

228. On November 30, 2006 she obtained a loan for $412,000.00 secured by a

deed of trust against her home.

229. She dutifully paid her monthly mortgage payments.

230. During the housing market crisis, the State of California ran into a budget

crisis and started issuing furloughs without pay. As a result Ms. Brown experienced an

extended but temporary hardship because her work days and hours at the DMV were

cut.


that







mortgage payments.


letter:





sum…”



30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


236. She missed three mortgage payments and on February 13, 2009 a Notice

of Default was recorded purporting Plaintiff owed $5,899.60 as of February 12, 2009,


237. After Aurora initiated foreclosure, Aurora sent Plaintiff a Workout

Agreement dated May 2009 requesting an initial payment of $1,237.00 for three

months which Plaintiff paid.





modification.

240. As a result, Plaintiff continued to make the lesser payments to Aurora

although she was facing imminent foreclosure.

241. Aurora Loan Services, LLC dragged Plaintiff through a loan modification

process under HAMP of over two years by sending her three (3) more plans.

242. She then entered a plan in November 2009 and made five payments of

$1541.00 per month plus an initial deposit of $1,474.00. Aurora accepted and cashed

these payments.

243. She contacted Aurora to see if she was approved for a modification after

the plan ended.

244. She was told that her loan was still being considered for modification and

to continue making lesser payments.

245. She then entered into a plan in August 2010 where she made six monthly

payments of $1,107.00 per month and the initial deposit of $2,000.00.

246. Aurora accepted and cashed these payments.



31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

247. After the plan ended, she contacted the customer service department of

Aurora and inquired if she was getting a modification and they informed her that she

was still being considered.








249. She was offered yet a fourth Special Forbearance plan in March or April

2011 which she entered and sent all of her payments as requested from March 2011

through June 2011 in the amount of $1,107.00 but each payment was rejected and

returned.

250. Aurora Loan Services, LLC failed to act in an efficient, honest, and timely

manner. As a result, Ms. Brown paid approximately $20,422.00 to Aurora Loan

Services, LLC from June 2009 through to February 2011 in an attempt to save her

home where her home loan debt kept getting bigger and bigger making it

impracticable if not impossible to reinstate the loan after eventual denial of her


251. As a direct and proximate result of Aurora’s conduct, plaintiff suffered

financial and emotional distress.

252. Ms. Brown is a minority and a member of a Constitutionally protected

class.

CHEN PI

253. Plaintiff CHEN S. PI is a retired scientist who became disabled several



32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

years ago and recently underwent hip surgery.

254. She bought her home in 1989 at 17116 Samgerry Drive, La Puente,

California 91744 and refinanced it in 2006 for $300,000.00 with a negative

amortization loan that had a rate that readjusted every year and a balloon payment in 5

years (2011).

255. When she realized the housing market was slowing down she tried to sell

her house and listed it with three agents but the housing prices went too low and she

would not be able to sustain the payments on her fixed income. When she turned 65,

she lost her disability insurance payments which made her situation worse.

256. As a result her currently monthly mortgage payments started to eat into

her retirement and savings.

257. She called Aurora and requested a loan modification.

258. She received the same type of general notices of programs available like

the other plaintiffs in this case from Aurora.

259. She also called and was interviewed over the phone and told she qualified

for their program.

260. On August 18, 2008 a Notice of Default was recorded purporting Ms. Pi

owed an unnamed beneficiary $5,656.22 as of August 15, 2008, starting the

foreclosure process.

261. Aurora sent Plaintiff a Workout Agreement.

262. Aurora requested 4 payments of $1152.10 per month which Ms. Pi paid

from January 2009 through to April 2009.

263. After the plan ended, she contacted the customer service department of

Aurora and inquired if she was getting a modification and they informed her that she





33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







265. Instead of offering plaintiff a Loan Modification, Aurora Loan Services,

LLC dragged her through a process of 2 more Special Forbearance Plans (Workout

Agreements) over a 2 year span before she was finally denied.

266. They offered her a second Workout Agreement of $1580.00 per month

which she paid.

267. Instead of “working” a modification out by the end of the second Workout

Agreement, Aurora placed plaintiff in yet another Workout Agreement of $889.00 per

month which she paid.


manner. As a result, Ms. Pi paid approximately $15,000.00 to Aurora Loan Services,

LLC from January 2009 through to January 2011 in an attempt to save her home

where her home loan debt kept getting bigger and bigger making it impracticable if

not impossible to reinstate the loan after eventual denial of her modification

application.

269. Aurora took Plaintiff’s home through foreclosure and took her possession

of the home away too during the loan modification dispute.

270. As a direct and proximate consequence of Auroras actions or failure to

act, Plaintiff was financially and emotionally distressed.

271. Ms. Pi is a disabled, minority and over 62 years of age. She is a member

of a Constitutionally protected class.



34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROBERT RHOADES & NICOLE RHOADES

272. Plaintiff Robert Rhoades purchased his home as his primary residence

located at 7748 Holland Park Street, Chino, CA 91708 in June 2007 for $710,980.00.

273. He is married to Nicole Rhoades.

274. He is a self-employed realtor. When the real estate market crashed, so did

his income.

275. Mr. Rhoades also had a heart attack in January 2010 which required

emergency surgery and he was unable to work full time for quite a few months in 2010

which caused a temporary hardship.


that



277. Plaintiff called the phone number on Aurora’s notice to see if he could



he qualified for a loan modification but that first he had to miss three mortgage

payments.


letter:





sum…”



35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


281. He missed three mortgage payments and on January 6, 2009 a Notice of

Default was recorded purporting Plaintiff owed $20,397.48 as of January 5, 2009,


282. HAMP began in or about February 2009 and Aurora sent Plaintiff a

Workout Agreement dated April 23, 2009 requesting over $60,000.00 in 6 months. It

requested an initial payment of $4,879.00 plus for 4 monthly payments of $11,978.00

and a 6th

balloon payment of $14,056.32 which Mr. Rhoades could not pay.

283. Plaintiff called Aurora and explained he did not have the money cure the

default under this plan.

284. On July 31, 2009 Aurora sent a second Workout Agreement requesting 3

monthly payments of $2,469.62 from August 1, 2009 through October 1, 2009 which

Mr. Rhoades paid as requested.

285. After the plan ended, he contacted the customer service department of

Aurora and inquired if he was getting a modification and they informed him that he









287. Aurora Loan Services, LLC dragged plaintiff through a process of over

two years by sending him another letter on October 10, 2009 affirmatively stating that

he should apply for a loan modification and then Aurora took further acts and gave



36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

him another Special Forbearance plan letter dated February 19, 2010 which requested

he make 3 monthly payments of $3,250.50 from 3/1/10 to 5/01/10 which he paid as

requested.

288. In total he paid $22,039.36 on his loan from May 2009 onward before he

was finally denied on August 22, 2011.

289. When the Rhoades telephoned Aurora to follow up on their modification

process during the summer of 2011, the Aurora Loan Services representative

affirmatively stated his foreclosure sale was still set although he had not yet been

denied a modification.


manner. As a result, Mr. Rhoades paid approximately $22,039.36 to Aurora Loan

Services, LLC from May 2009 through to May 2010 in an attempt to save his home

where his home loan debt kept getting bigger and bigger making it impracticable if not

impossible to reinstate the loan after eventual denial of his modification application.

291. Auroras actions and failure to act was a direct and proximate result of

Plaintiff’s financial Distress.

NICOLE RHOADES

292. Nicole Rhoades is married to Robert Rhoades.

293. She was tasked with communicating and primarily dealing with Aurora

during this two year loan modification process.

294. The excuses, delays, and repeated requests for the same papers that were

previously provided to Aurora in order to further delay process by Aurora while facing

imminent foreclosure became so stressful Nicole Rhoades suffered a stroke.

295. Auroras actions and failure to act was a direct and proximate result of

Plaintiff’s financial Distress.



37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JEREMY JOHN DALE AND CORA-JEAN DALE

296. Plaintiff JEREMY JOHN DALE and his wife Cora-Jean (“Jeannie”) Dale

have lived on the property that is the subject of this complaint since December 1978.

Initially, Mrs. Dale bought the land and then bought a single wide mobile home to put

on it. Then they built their dream home and completed construction in 2006.

297. Plaintiff JEREMY JOHN DALE, as borrower, executed and delivered a

deed of trust dated December 8, 2006 conveying the real property described as 30510

Highway 36 East, Paynes Creek, CA 96705 to secure payment of the principal sum

and interest as provided in the note in the amount of $266,500.00 to lender BWC

MORTGAGE SERVICES which then “nominated” MERS as a “nominee for Lender.”

Said deed of trust was recorded against the subject property in the Official Records in

Tehama County, California.

298. Mr. Dale is a truck driver where he worked for Riverside Landscaping

Supplies for the past 10 years. However, he injured his back requiring surgery and a

prolonged recuperation time which took him away from his job and increased medical

expenses. He finally went back to work in October 2010 but was laid off due to the

winter season and lack of work in the sluggish economy.


that:



300. Plaintiff called the phone number on Aurora’s notice to see if he could



he qualified for a loan modification (there was no HAMP yet) but that first he had to

miss three mortgage payments.



38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


letter:





sum…”

303. On December 24, 2008 a Notice of Default was recorded purporting Mr.

Dale owed an unnamed beneficiary $8,416.48 as of December 23, 2008.

304. Plaintiffs obtained a series of Workout Agreements from Aurora and

started requesting a loan modification under HAMP in or about June 2009.

6/10/2009 $1347.69 5/26/2009 $1347.69

7/7/2009 $1347.69 5/26/2009 $1347.69

8/7/2009 $1347.69 5/26/2009 $1347.69

9/1/2009 $2253.37 8/24/2009 $2253.37

10/18/2009 $2163.33 10/16/2009 $2163.33

11/2/2009 $2163.33 10/16/2009 $2163.33

Payments under the Loss Mitigation “loan modification” program:

12/1/2009 $2163.33 10/16/2009 $2163.33

12/30/2009 $2163.33 10/16/2009 $2163.33

1/29/2010 $2163.33 10/16/2009 $2163.33

2/26/2010 $2163.33 10/16/2009 $2163.33

3/31/2010 $2163.33 10/16/2009 $2163.33

5/17/2010 $2163.33 10/16/2009 $2163.33

6/30/2010 $2164.33 5/20/2010 $2164.33

8/6/2010 $2164.33 5/20/2010 $2164.33

8/26/2010 $2164.33 5/20/2010 $2164.33

305. After making fifteen (15) monthly mortgage payments while attempting to



39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

get a loan modification, Aurora sent a letter to plaintiff dated 8/26/2010 purporting

plaintiff had been denied for a loan modification.

306. Plaintiff attempted to make a mortgage payment on plaintiff’s loan on

September 1, 2010 but Aurora refused to accept the payment.

307. A Special Forbearance Agreement dated on or about May 2009 requested

three monthly payments of $1,347.69 per month which Mr. Dale paid as requested.

308. After Mr. Dale successfully completed the Special Forbearance Plan his

obligation under the plan ended he called Aurora to see if his loan was being

modified.

309. Aurora told him that they were still processing his loan modification.

310. Instead of sending Plaintiff a modification, Aurora Loan Services, LLC

dragged him through a process of over two years by sending him three (3) more plans.

He paid $2163.33 per month under the 2009 plans and $2,164.33 per month under the

last plan of May 20, 2010.

311. No matter how hard plaintiff tried to save his home from foreclosure, on

about December 2010 Aurora denied Mr. Dale a modification and took the home

through foreclosure.

312. He and his wife Cora-Jean Dale were locked out by Aurora in July 2011.


manner. As a result, Mr. Dale paid approximately $33,037.60 to Aurora Loan

Services, LLC from June 2009 through to February 2011 after default in an attempt to

save his home where his home loan debt kept getting bigger and bigger making it

impracticable if not impossible to reinstate the loan after eventual denial of his


CORA-JEAN DALE

314. At all times mentioned Cora-Jean Dale was married to Jeremy John Dale



40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and they were residing under the same roof.

315. She was tasked with communicating and primarily dealing with Aurora

during this two year loan modification process.



imminent foreclosure became so stressful Cora-Jean Dale suffered severe emotional

distress.

ALICE MBAABU AND MAURICE MBAABU

317. Alice Mbaabu had a home in 13536 Whipple Street, Fontana, California

92336.

318. She also experienced a financial hardship and requested a loan modification

prior to default but she was denied.


that






she qualified for a loan modification (there was no HAMP yet) but that first she had to

miss three mortgage payments.


letter:






41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


sum…”

323. So plaintiff missed making her mortgage payments.

324. Mrs. Mbaabu was already in default and Aurora was already initiating

foreclosure when they sent her a Workout Agreement.

325. Plaintiff made her plan payments and called Aurora to see if she was getting

a loan modification.

326. They told her they were still processing her modification.

327. They told her to continue making her plan payments and she paid Aurora

approximately $24,728.00 plus placed $5,899.60 additional payments in trust with her

attorney and/or deposited with the court.

328. However, she did not receive her modification.


manner. As a result, Ms. Mbaabu lost her home in 2010 through foreclosure after she

paid approximately $26,978.40 to Aurora Loan Services, LLC from November 2009

through October 2010 in an attempt to save her home where her home loan debt kept

getting bigger and bigger making it impracticable if not impossible to reinstate the

loan after eventual denial of her modification application.

330. During the middle of her workout agreement payments, Aurora foreclosed

and took the house at foreclosure auction on or about June 11, 2010.

331. Aurora represented Ms. Mbaabu could obtain a loan modification after the

sale if she made a rental payment and demanded a rental payment of $3,600.00 which

was paid on October 20, 2010.

332. Then on January 21, 2011 Ms. Mbaabu received a letter from Aurora

representing “We have not received the documents/information requested from you”

and as such her loan modification (post purported foreclosure sale) was being delayed.



42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

333. Then, while a court order by stipulation was instituted as to Notice No. 8,

Aurora sold my home at foreclosure sale to itself – again – on or about February 28,

2011.

334. Although Plaintiff lost her home in 2010 and 2011, she has been receiving

notices from Nationstar using the same loan number stating it is the new servicer as of

July 2012 and it is attempting to collect a debt.

335. In the meantime her debt accruing on this loan has been getting larger and

larger.

336. Aurora’s actions and failure to act have caused plaintiff financial and

emotional distress.

337. Plaintiff is elderly and a minority and is a member of a Constitutionally

protected class.

MAURICE MBAABU

338. Plaintiff Maurice Mbaabu is the adult son of Alice Mbaabu and was living

with his mother and assisting her to try to keep her home during this time period.

339. He assisted with communicating and dealing with Aurora during this two

year loan modification process.



imminent foreclosure became so stressful Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.

341. Plaintiff is a minority and is a member of a Constitutionally protected class.

///

///

///

///

///



43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Class Action Allegations

342. Plaintiffs bring this action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, on behalf of the themselves and on the following Classes:

CLASS A

All (1) residential mortgage borrowers having their loans serviced by or

on behalf of Aurora Loan Services, LLC who (2) received the above-

described plans from Aurora Loan Services, LLC (3) but did not receive

a final determination on their modification applications within a

reasonable time* after a Notice of Default was recorded on their

property placing them in “imminent foreclosure” status after default. (*

A reasonable amount of time is defined as the first 90 days after the

homeowner entered into the first loss mitigation program.)

Subclass of CLASS A (A1)

All members of Class A who were disabled and/or elderly as statutorily

defined. (This subclass is requested on the grounds said conduct created

a higher substantial risk of permanent displacement and/or led to the

permanent displacement of this socioeconomic class of persons and

various pre-existing laws and rights were in place to specially protect

this class of persons.)

CLASS B

All persons who were residing with Class members defined in Class A,

above.

343. Excluded from the Class are defendants, and their affiliates, subsidiaries,

current or former employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives, and their family

members.



44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

344. Plaintiffs do not know the exact size or identities of the members of the

proposed class, since such information is in the exclusive control of the Defendants.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon based on Aurora’s declaration in

this case that the class size consists of anywhere from 10,000 to 150,000 California

residents. Therefore, the proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable.

345. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, including but not

limited to:

i. Whether Aurora engaged in a common course of conduct to

systematically and unreasonably extend the time between recording a

Notice of Default and notifying Plaintiffs of the final determination of

their applications for loan modifications;

ii. Whether Aurora engaged in a common course of conduct to

systematically extract additional money from members of the Class

after they had made three timely payments pursuant to their TPPs.

iii. Whether the representations, statements and/or conduct of

Aurora caused injury to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class.

iv. Whether Aurora was required to notify Plaintiffs and the

members of the Class that it was either going to grant or deny a

permanent loan modification request within a reasonable time after

they entered the loss mitigation program and whether Aurora

breached said duty.

v. Whether the Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to injunctive

relief as a result of the complained of conduct alleged herein.

vi. Whether the Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover

damages as a result of the complained-of conduct alleged herein.



45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

vii. The appropriate measure of damages sustained by the Plaintiffs

and members of the Classes.

346. The Plaintiffs are members of the Class and their claims are typical of the

claims of the members of the Class and they will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the Class The Plaintiffs’ respective interests are coincident with and not

antagonistic to those of the other members of the Class. In addition, the Plaintiffs are

represented by counsel who are competent and experience in mortgage foreclosure

litigation and class action litigation.

347. The prosecution of separate actions by the Plaintiffs and individual

members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications,

establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Aurora.

348. Aurora has acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the

members of the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to

the Class as a whole.

349. The questions of law or fact common to the members of the Class, as

identified in ¶ 345 of this Complaint, predominate over any questions affecting only

individual members of the Class, including legal and factual issues relating to liability

and damages.

350. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy. The members of the Class are readily definable and is

one for which records should exist in the files of Aurora. The prosecution and the

defense of this case as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitious

litigation. Treatment as a class action will permit a large number of similarly situated

persons to adjudicate their common claims and common defenses in a single forum

simultaneously, efficiently and without duplication of effort and expense that numerous

individual actions would engender. Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of



46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relatively small claims by many members of the Class who otherwise could not afford to

litigate claims such as are asserted in this Complaint. This class action does not present

any difficulties of management that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

351. This is a matter of important public policy because this class of home

owners cannot afford legal representation, thus evading judicial review of a protected

class, and the preservation of home ownership, savings and retirement, where possible,

and the fair treatment of distressed borrowers are state and national policy priorities.

Claims

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence

(All Plaintiffs and Classes against all Defendants)

352. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 351

above as though set forth in full herein.

353. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each

member of Class A, B and Subclass A1 described above.

354. NMS as the successor servicer, is jointly liable for the acts of ALS alleged

herein.

355. After Defendant induced the borrowers to default on their loan and

Defendant placed them in foreclosure, Defendant offered each of the borrowers a

payment plan called a Workout Agreement or Temporary Payment Plan which each of

the borrowers made their payments on. The “end and aim” of entering into these loss

mitigation programs was so that the borrower could obtain an affordable loan

modification on their home so that homeownership would be sustained.

356. The TPP stated that Aurora would modify their loans after making their

payments.



47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

357. But the defendant failed to modify their loans at the end of initial three

months of the payment plan.

358. Instead Aurora sent the borrowers letters of assurance which encouraged

them to keep sending payments while facing imminent foreclosure stating in part “Our

records indicate that you have successfully made several payments in accordance with

your home retention payment arrangement. Based on your performance under the

payment arrangement, we would like to offer you a more permanent home retention

option.”

359. Defendant owed plaintiffs, a duty of reasonable care when foreclosing to

process defendant’s foreclosure alternatives in its loss mitigation program to the

plaintiffs in a timely and accurate manner in conformity with standards of conduct in

the industry to protect plaintiffs against further losses associated with the loan,

including but not limited to actual foreclosure.

360. It was reasonably foreseeable to Aurora that (1) the failure to timely and

accurately modify the loan after the borrower was in foreclosure would create such

large arrearages that the homeowner would not be able to cure their arrearages after a

final determination on their loan modification was made; and/or (2) the foreclosure

Aurora induced by informing the borrowers that they had to miss their mortgage

payments, their initial telephone qualification call, and the follow up letter after they

made their plan payments which said “we would like to offer you a more permanent

home retention option” would affect the borrowers and their family members residing

in the home facing imminent foreclosure.

361. Aurora was made aware of the other family members residing in the home

during the initial telephonic interview it had with the borrowers to determine if they

were eligible for the HAMP program.

362. The plaintiffs also supplied this information on their HAMP application



48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

forms that they filled out and returned to Aurora as instructed.

363. It was reasonably foreseeable to Aurora that the delay in modifying the

loan during the foreclosure would cause the family members emotional distress.

364. Aurora intended to affect the plaintiffs by offering alternatives to avoid

foreclosure by loan modification through the TPP and Workout Agreement payment

plans then telling them that they had to default on their loans by missing mortgage

payments first and later false assurances.

365. It was foreseeable that the plaintiffs would be harmed by any unreasonable

delay of longer than three months by Aurora while Plaintiffs and those similarly situated

were facing foreclosure on the grounds, including but not limited to a foreclosure sale

could be concluded within that time or the arrearages, expenses and fees accruing on the

loan would get so large that the plaintiff who was denied a loan modification would not

be able to cure their default.

366. The long running delay as to whether the borrowers qualified for a loan

modification that went beyond the first three months, imposed a duty of preventing

future harm requiring Aurora and Nationstar to take into account the delay of Aurora

when offering a permanent modification to borrowers like Joanne Anderson, Steve

Burke, and Angela Brown.

367. Aurora and Nationstar breached that duty by failing to put those borrowers

back in the same position that they would have been if they would have been three

months after entering the loss mitigation program.

368. There is a great degree of certainty that the plaintiff would suffer said

injuries due to these actions and failure to act.

369. The closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct of having

the borrowers first default on their loan and then unreasonably delaying the loan

modification during the foreclosure process to the plaintiffs’ inability to cure the default



49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

causing emotional distress is great.

370. Aurora is morally blameworthy by unreasonably delaying the modification

with illusory promise to modify modifications to these homeowners facing imminent

foreclosure on the grounds Aurora’s practice was in contravention to federal and state

policies as stated in HBOR, the OCC Consent Orders, the Making Home Affordable

Guidelines of the HAMP Program and the Servicer Participation Agreements Aurora

entered into.

371. It was wholly foreseeable that any mishandling and delay of the loss

mitigation plans (TPP and Special Forbearance Workout Agreements) during the

foreclosure process would cause the plaintiff borrowers, plaintiff family members and

those similarly situated financial and emotional distress.

372. Aurora breached its duty when it failed to provide the plaintiffs and those

similarly situated with a loan modification that made their loan more affordable after

plaintiffs made three months of payments under the loss mitigation plan and/or failure

to put plaintiffs back in the same position that they would have been if they were

offered a loan modification after the three months of payments were made as required.

373. As a result of the breach of duty, the Plaintiffs arrearages grew so large

that the Plaintiffs could not cure their default.

374. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiffs

and each of them, were injured in their property, person and/or mind.

375. Some plaintiffs and those similarly situated lost their home.

376. Plaintiffs also suffered an array of stress triggered medical conditions,

exacerbation of preexisting medical conditions, and emotional distress, including but

not limited to, worry, anxiety, headaches, embarrassment, ridicule, shame, fear, panic,

depression, insomnia, inability to concentrate, paranoia, family strife, stomach

problems, malaise and general emotional distress.



50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

377. As a proximate result of defendants breach of due care, the Plaintiffs and

those similarly situated are entitled to special and general damages in an amount to be

proven at trial.

Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendants as set forth below.

SECOND CAUSE OFACTION

Wrongful Death

(Against Aurora as to Joanne Anderson and the Estate of Berd, and those

Similarly Situated)

378. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action all of the allegations in

paragraphs 1 through 377 as though set forth in full herein.

379. This claim is brought by plaintiff Joanne Anderson on behalf of herself and

all others similarly situated.

380. Elliot Berd passed away on July 13, 2012.

381. Elliot Berd was Plaintiff Joanne Anderson’s domestic partner.

382. He was very involved in the loan modification process of plaintiff Joanne

Anderson’s loan which began in 2009.

383. Aurora was using his income from his pension, social security and part

time jobs as part of the loan modification process.

384. Elliot Berd was diagnosed on April 1, 2011 with Adenocarcinoma (the

non-smokers lung cancer).

385. Prior to the default induced by Aurora, Elliot Berd was not sick.

386. Inducing Joanne Anderson to default leading to imminent foreclosure and

unreasonably delaying the modification process was a substantial factor in causing

and/or aggravating this terminal disease and contributed to his death.

387. Aurora was immediately informed of his diagnosis of cancer, but Aurora

continued to delay the loan modification process which had begun almost one and one-



51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

half years ago.

388. Elliot Berd held onto life for one more year while Joanne Anderson tried to

obtain a loan modification.

389. He had just had his 69th birthday when he passed.

390. The Decedent, Elliot Berd, left a surviving domestic partner, Joanne

Anderson.

391. By reason of the foregoing, Joanne Anderson, has been deprived and will

continue to be deprived of the love, companionship, comfort, care, services, assistance,

protections, affection, society, moral support and the loss of enjoyment of sexual

relations as part of her noneconomic losses, all to her damage in an amount with

exceeds the jurisdiction limits of all courts with might have jurisdiction.

392. As a proximate result of Decedent’s wrongful death, Plaintiff has suffered

certain economic damages such as the financial support that Decedent would have

contributed to the family during either the life expectancy that Decedent had before his

death or the life expectancy of Decedent, whichever is shorter; and the loss of gifts or

benefits that Plaintiff would have expected to receive from Decedent;

393. As a further proximate result of Decedent’s wrongful death, Plaintiff has

incurred funeral and burial expenses; and the reasonable value of household services

that Decedent would have provided.

THIRD CAUSE OFACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

(Against Aurora by All Plaintiffs and Class A and Class B)



395. Plaintiffs and defendant Aurora had a pre-existing relationship of borrower

and loan servicer.



52

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

396. The Defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct with the intent

to cause, or with reckless disregard for the probability of causing, emotional distress by

inducing Plaintiffs to skip their monthly mortgage payments in order to enter the

HAMP loan modification process then initiating foreclosure while they unreasonably

delayed processing the loan modification beyond the three month period.

397. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ actions and/or

failure to act, the Plaintiffs suffered extreme or severe emotional distress as more fully

alleged above.

398. The defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct what the actual and

proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ extreme or severe emotional distress in that

Defendants’ conduct was so extreme that it exceeded all bounds of decency in a

civilized community.

399. As a proximate result, defendants conduct was malicious, reckless, willful,

despicable, of depraved heart warranting punitive damages.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraud

(All Plaintiffs and Class A against Defendant Aurora)

400. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 399 above as

though fully set forth herein.


member of the Class A and Subclass described above.

402. The federal government initiated the Making Home Affordable program in

March of 2009. President Obama issued a press release alerting the media and public

that the U.S. Department of Treasury was placing $50 billion for financial institution

incentives to work with distressed homeowners and modify their loans under the HAMP



53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

program.

403. Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC sent the plaintiffs a TPP with a cover

letter on Aurora Loan Services, LLC letterhead that said if Plaintiffs’ representations

were accurate and if Plaintiffs were in compliance with the Trial Period Plan, the Lender

“would provide” Plaintiffs “with a Loan Modification Agreement.”

404. Aurora Loan Services drafted the TPP.

405. The Plaintiffs were in compliance with the TPP and made their payments

required by the plan.

406. However, Aurora did not modify the agreement.

407. When Plaintiffs challenged Aurora’s failure to modify, Plaintiffs discovered

that Aurora, had no intent of modifying after Plaintiffs made their plan payments and

instead reserved for itself the right to actually modify the loans, thereby working a fraud

on the plaintiffs.

408. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that letters were sent

from various employees by defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC and were authorized

to issue the letters to the plaintiffs and class on behalf of Aurora Loan Services, LLC

from March 2009 to the present as described above.

409. Aurora’s representations in the letters were misleading and/or deceitful

because Aurora had no intention of and did not modify the loans of those homeowners

who entered into the TPP or Special Forbearance Workout Agreements after the

borrowers had complied with submitting their paperwork and payments to Aurora.

410. As a result of these representations, plaintiffs Joanne Anderson, Angela

Brown, Richard Apostolos, Steve Burke, and those similarly situated, signed the TPP

or Special Forbearance Workout Agreements, submitted their paperwork and made

their payments to Aurora.

411. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on these representations on the grounds that



54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Aurora Loan Services, LLC was their servicer and they received these papers through

the US Mail from Aurora Loan Services, LLC on Aurora Loan Services, LLC

letterhead.

412. At the time Aurora sent out these documents to the plaintiffs, Aurora knew

or should have known that they were untruthful and deceitful in this respect on the

grounds its pattern and practice was to delay modification past the three month

modification period for those who entered these loss mitigation programs of TPP and

Special Forbearance Workout Agreements.

413. As a direct and proximate consequence of Aurora’s fraud, the plaintiffs

loans increased at a rate that the plaintiffs could not later cure their default, leaving

them in imminent default after a fair modification was not reached.

414. As a result of Aurora’s fraud and/or deceit, plaintiffs suffered and will

continue to suffer reasonable and foreseeably consequential damages resulting from

such fraud, of either (1) losing their savings, retirement, credit rating and home to

foreclosure because they cannot cure the amassed amount of the default or (2) if they

eventually receive a modification they have the increased payment of increased

interest, longer loan payoff times, high principal balances with the outstanding debt

and expense recapitalized, damage to their credit, additional income tax liability, costs

and expenses incurred to prevent or fight foreclosure, and other damages in an amount

to be proven at trial.

415. Plaintiff Richard Apostolos lost his home as a result of Aurora’s deceitful

acts.

416. Plaintiff Steve Burke was forced to accept a loan modification with a

balloon payment he will never be able to repay, which is nothing more than a forced

foreclosure delay plan by Aurora.

417. Plaintiffs Angela Brown and Joanne Anderson continue to face imminent



55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

foreclosure and dispossession of their home.

418. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff has been

emotionally and financially injured in an amount to be proven at trial.

419. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.


FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)

(All plaintiffs and Class A against Nationstar)

420. Plaintiff incorporates in this claim all of the allegations above in paragraphs

1 through 419 as though fully set forth herein.


member of Class A and Subclasses described above.

422. Nationstar is a “debt collector” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §

1788.2(c). The monies allegedly owed by plaintiffs and the class are “debts” within the

meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §1788.2(d).

423. California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code

§1788 et seq. (“Rosenthal Act”), incorporates by reference, and requires compliance

with, the provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692

et seq. Cal. Civ. Code §1788.17.

424. Nationstar violated the Rosenthal Act by using false, deceptive, and

misleading statements as alleged herein, in connection with its collection of Plaintiffs’

and the class’ mortgage debt by (1) making false, deceptive, or misleading

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt, 15 U.S.C.

§1692e; (2) making false representations or deceptive means to collect or attempts to

collect any debt, 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10); and/or (3) making unfair or unconscionable



56

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

means to collect or attempts to collect any debt, 15 U.S.C. §1692f.

425. Plaintiffs requested to participate in the Home Affordable Modification

Program.

426. Aurora increased Plaintiffs’ arrearages while Plaintiffs participated in

Aurora’s loss mitigation program which Aurora led Plaintiffs to believe was the Home

Affordable Modification Program.

427. The program of unreasonable delay did not make Plaintiffs’ home more

“affordable” nor did it lead to “modification.”

428. Defendant Aurora used the program to increase their principal balance on

their pool of loans, charge extra fees and costs, including escrow charges.

429. Defendant Aurora also caused ‘corporate assignment of deed of trust’

documents to be filed in the County recorder’s office although Aurora had no beneficial

interest in the deed of trust or note.

430. Aurora used a limited number of its employees to execute the assignments

representing they were officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. but

these employees were not officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

431. Even if the assignments would have been valid with regard to said deed of

trust, said purported assignment of deed of trust would have had no effect on ownership

of the underlying loan obligation evidenced by said promissory note.

432. The assignments were used to cover up the fact that Aurora did not have a

full and complete collateral file (the original loan documents) necessary for a

foreclosure or for a sale, if the borrower decided to sell their home.

433. Defendant Aurora then packaged the entire debt with the bogus charges and

assignments and transferred the servicing rights to Nationstar.

434. Nationstar then attempted to validate and collect from Plaintiff on said

alleged obligation by sending a debt validation letter dated July 15, 2012 cloaked as a



57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

notice of transfer of servicing rights to all of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.

435. The Nationstar letter said

a. Unless you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, in

writing within 30 days after receipt of this notice, the debt will be

assume to be valid by Nationstar.

436. Plaintiffs did not understand the letter to be a debt validation letter but

construed it as a notice of servicing rights transfer.

437. Plaintiffs understanding was reasonable on the grounds the first sentence of

the letter said “Welcome to Nationstar Mortgage!” and the last sentence said “We

welcome you to Nationstar Mortgage and look forward to being your mortgage

servicer.”

438. The debt listed in the notice included interest, fees, and charges, including

but not limited to escrow charges, that were not expressly authorized by any agreement

creating the debt or permitted by law, in violation of FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

439. Instead of disputing the amount alleged in the debt validation request,

Plaintiffs continued to attempt to obtain a loan modification from Nationstar.

440. Defendants knew that their said claims included interest, fees, and charges,

including but not limited to escrow charges, and other arrearages that were incurred

during the loan modification process as a result of Aurora’s unreasonable delay was not

expressly authorized by any agreement under the Making Home Affordable Guidelines

or permitted by law.

441. However, Nationstar refused to reduce the debt to put the plaintiffs back in

the same position that they would have been if Aurora had timely modified their loans.

442. As a result of Defendants’ actions described herein, Plaintiff sustained

injuries including but not limited to mental anguish, emotional distress, damage to credit

and reputation, and costs and attorney’s fees.



58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

443. Using the federal HAMP program and the like that was designed to assist

the homeowner that was having trouble sustaining homeownership with his or her

currently monthly mortgage payments and to preserve savings and retirement in an

effort to deplete the borrowers savings and retirement while keeping the home for the

bank was intentional, as means to collect a debt was a despicable and willful practice

on Aurora Loan Service, LLC’s part deserving of punitive and exemplary damages.

444. Pursuant to California Civil Code §1788.30 and 1788.17, plaintiffs are

entitled to recover actual damages as a result of Aurora’s violations, plus $1,000.00 for

each violation committed willingly and knowingly pursuant to Cal Civ Code §§ 1788.30

and 1788.17.

445. Plaintiffs and the class are also entitled to attorney fees, costs and expenses

incurred in the bringing of this action pursuant to Cal Civ Code §1788.30(c).


SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code § 17200

(Against All Defendants by All Plaintiffs and Class A and Class B)


paragraphs 1 through 445 above as though set forth in full herein.

447. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of each

member of the Classes and Subclasses in A and B described above.

448. NMS (aka Nationstar) as the successor servicer, is jointly liable for the

acts of ALS (aka Aurora) alleged herein.

449. Business & Professions Code §17200 prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or

fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading

advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of



59

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business & Professions Code” and reaches past and one-

time acts. Id. See also, Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v Lucky Stores, Inc., 17 Cal4th 553,

570 (1998).

450. Beginning at an exact date unknown to plaintiff but at least since June,

2009, Aurora Loan Services, LLC has committed acts of unfair competition, as

defined by Business & Professions Code §17200, by engaging in the following

practices:

a. ALS’s policy/practice of failing to review plaintiffs’ loan

modification requests in good faith while they were seeking assistance in

order to save their home from foreclosure, and to conform to standards of

conduct in the industry to protect plaintiffs against further losses

associated with the loan violated the Making Home Affordable Guidelines

that Aurora promised to follow when it signed the Servicer Participation

Agreement with the U.S. Treasury department and consequently,

constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of

Business & Professions Code §17200.

b. ALS’s policy/practice of delaying borrowers in default of a

determination on their refinancing/modifications then offering

modifications/refinancing on troubled loans already in default to

borrower-plaintiffs on worse terms to the borrower (e.g. higher monthly

payment; higher principal balance; and added balloon payment) without

regard to the borrower’s ability to repay the loan, as more particularly

described above violated MHA and SPA, and consequently, constitutes an

unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of Business &

Professions Code §17200.

c. The harm to plaintiff and to members of the general public



60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

outweighs the utility of defendant’s policy/practice, and consequently,

Aurora’s practice of said representations to borrowers like the plaintiffs

seeking assistance in order to save their home from foreclosure constitutes

an unfair business act or practice within the meaning of Business &

Professions Code §17200.

d. Aurora’s policy/practice as described above is likely to mislead the

general public in that said practice actually put the borrower in imminent

threat of losing their home through nonjudicial foreclosure in California,

and consequently, constitutes a fraudulent business act or practice within

the meaning of Business & Professions Code §17200.

451. The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices and false and

misleading advertising of Aurora Loan Services, LLC, as described above, present a

continuing threat to members of the public in that it gives a false reassurance to a

reasonable person in foreclosure that Aurora Loan Services, LLC that a permanent

modification or refinancing would be offered within three months of entering the loss

mitigation program and that the modification would be one that was more affordable

(aka at a rate that was more favorable than the terms of the original loan and would be

offered in a reasonable time).

452. Plaintiffs lost money and/or property interest on the grounds they (1)

incurred extra charges on their loan; (2) were duped into making unnecessary payments

under the loss mitigation plans for a modification; (3) were forced to agree to

modifications that were so unfair, they were tantamount to mere foreclosure delay

plans; (4) lost title to their homes; and/or (5) lost possession of their homes.

453. Plaintiff and other members of the general public have no other adequate

remedy at law in that real property is deemed unique, and the plaintiff and other

members of the general public lost their opportunity to take advantage of any



61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

alternative to foreclosure after Plan Payments ended on the grounds that they were

duped by the false advertisement of Aurora Loan Services, LLC.

454. As a result of the aforementioned acts, plaintiffs’ have lost money or

property and suffered injury in fact.

455. Moreover defendants engaged in a uniform pattern and practice of unfair

and overly-aggressive servicing that resulted in the unwarranted emotional distress of

homeowners, including the plaintiffs. The scheme implemented by defendants is

designed to defraud California consumers and enrich defendants.

456. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have been unjustly enriched and

should be required to remediate all credit damage created thereby, and make

restitution to Plaintiffs and other California consumers who have been harmed, and/or

be enjoined from continuing in such practices pursuant to California Business &

Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17204.

457. Additionally, Plaintiffs are further entitled to injunctive relief.

458. Finally, stopping this practice furthers the public interest. Plaintiff is

therefore entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under section 1021.5 of the California

Code of Civil Procedure.


SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAL Violation of §17500

(Against Aurora and Nationstar by All Plaintiffs and Class A and Class B)

459. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in


460. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of each member of

Class A and B described above.

461. California’s Bus & Prof Code §17500 statute provides: “It is unlawful for



62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent

directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services,

professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public

to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made

or disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or disseminate or cause to be

made or disseminated from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or

other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in

any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement,

concerning that real or personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, or

concerning any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed

performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known,

or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or

misleading, or for any person, firm, or corporation to so make or disseminate or cause

to be so made or disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the

intent not to sell that personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, so

advertised at the price stated therein, or as so advertised. Any violation of the

provisions of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county

jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred

dollars ($2,500), or by both that imprisonment and fine.” Id.

462. Beginning at an exact date unknown to plaintiff but at least since June,

2009, Aurora has committed acts of untrue and misleading advertising, as defined by

Bus & Prof Code §17500, by engaging in the following acts and practices with the

intent to induce members of the public to enter into these loss mitigation plans and pay

reduced payments while facing imminent foreclosure and wait for extended periods of

time in a desperate attempt to save their homes from foreclosure by sending plaintiffs

notices and announcements that Aurora was participating in the HAMP modification



63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

program without placing adequate warnings as particularly described above.

463. The republications from the sampling placed in this pleading for the

2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 are attached as Exhibit A, B, C and D which stated X, and

464. This was an advertisement or republication of defendant’s initial

advertisement as that term is defined by Bus & Prof Code §17500.

465. Defendant’s advertisement concerned the disposition of real property as

required by Bus & Prof Code §17500.

466. Defendant advertised that it intended to foreclose unless plaintiff entered

into these loss mitigation plans which would lead to modification (get more technical

here).

467. Defendant publicly disseminated advertising which contained a

statement which was untrue or misleading, and which the defendant knew, or in the

exercise of reasonable care should have known, was untrue or misleading, and which

concerned the real property or service or their disposition or performance with regard to

the HAMP modification program on foreclosing on the properties.

468. Defendant Aurora publicly disseminated the notices representing that said if

Plaintiffs’ representations were accurate and if Plaintiffs were in compliance with the

Trial Period Plan, the Lender “would provide” Plaintiffs “with a Loan Modification

Agreement” making it appear to the general public that it would immediately modify

plaintiff’s loan if plaintiff submitted all paperwork and made the required plan

payments.

469. Plaintiffs relied on Aurora’s statements on the first page of the TPP plan

and made the plan payments to Aurora, however Aurora did not immediately provide

Plaintiffs with a Loan Modification Agreement.

470. Instead, Defendant Aurora publicly disseminated letters of assurance which

encouraged the Borrowers to keep sending payments while facing imminent foreclosure



64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

by stating in part “Our records indicate that you have successfully made several

payments in accordance with your home retention payment arrangement. Based on your

performance under the payment arrangement, we would like to offer you a more

permanent home retention option.”

471. Plaintiffs relied on Aurora’s statements on in the letter and continued to

make more plan payments to Aurora, however Aurora did not immediately provide

Plaintiffs with a Loan Modification Agreement or other permanent home retention

option.

472. As a direct and proximate consequence, plaintiffs and those similarly

situated sent in an average of $27,000.00 to Aurora in the hopes of a modification;

spent time filling out and sending in paperwork; and still faced foreclosure and/or had

their homes taken at foreclosure auction, evictions placed or lock-outs executed.

473. The acts of untrue and misleading advertising by Aurora described in this

complaint present a continuing threat to members of the public in that Nationstar is

obligated to use Aurora’s servicing practices and Aurora continued to issue similar

notices with the same advertisement and the same results to the homeowners.

474. Plaintiffs and other members of the general public have no other adequate

remedy at law, justifying injunctive relief barring these advertisements.

475. As a further proximate result, plaintiff and those similarly situated are

entitled to restitution pursuant to Cal Bus & Prof Code §17535 as necessary “to restore

to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been

acquired by means of any practice in this chapter declared to be unlawful.”


EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Aiding and Abetting Violation of §17200

(Against Nationstar by All Plaintiffs and Class A and Class B)



65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

476. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in


477. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each member

of Class A and B described above.

478. Defendant Nationstar knew and was aware of Aurora Loan Services’

unlawful, unfair or deceptive business practices and untrue and misleading advertising

alleged above by virtue of directing the foreclosures, concluding the foreclosures or

becoming the beneficiary of the Preforeclosure payments or post foreclosures on these

properties during this period.

479. Defendants Nationstar aided and abetted/induced these violations by

Aurora in that they commanded or conducted the foreclosure on these properties

during this period.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendant Aurora Loan

Services, LLC and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC as follows:

a. An order certifying the plaintiff class, appointing named plaintiffs as the

representatives of the class and appointing the law firm(s) representing the

named plaintiffs as counsel for the class;

b. Statewide statutory damages under the Rosenthal Act, as it incorporates the

remedies provision of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692k, pursuant to §1788.17

of the California Civil Code.

c. The court grant a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and

permanent injunctive relief preventing foreclosures of plaintiffs and the

class’ property;



66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

d. Declaratory and Injunctive relief under the UCL

e. Special and General Damages;

f. Such additional orders or judgments as may be necessary to prevent these

practices and to restore to any person in interest and money or property

which may have been acquired by means of the UCL violations;

g. A permanent or final injunction

h. Restitution or Disgorgement of profits;

i. Costs of this action, including the fees and costs of experts;

j. Attorneys’ fees;

k. Prejudgment interest at the statutory rate;

l. Post-judgment interest;

m. Exemplary and Punitive Damages; and

n. Grant plaintiffs and the class such other and further relief as this Court finds

necessary and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.

Dated: August 27, 2013 LAW OFFICES OF LENORE ALBERT

By:/s/ Lenore L. Albert_______________

LENORE ALBERT, ESQ.

Attorney for the Plaintiffs and the Class



67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE:

I declare that I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within action; that I

am employed in Orange County, California; my business address is 7755 Center Avenue

Suite #1100,Huntington Beach, CA 92647.

On August 27, 2013, I served a copy of the following document(s) described as:


On the interested parties in this action as follows:

See attached Mail List

[ ] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL – I caused such document(s) to be placed in pre-addressed

envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid and sealed, to be deposited as

Express/Priority Mail for next day delivery at Westminster, California, to the

aforementioned addressee(s).

[x] BY MAIL – I caused such document(s) to be placed in pre-addressed envelope(s)

with postage thereon fully prepaid and sealed, to be deposited as regular mail at

Westminster, California, to the aforementioned addressee(s).

[] BY CM/ECF – I caused such document(s) to be transmitted to the office(s) of the

addressee(s) listed above by electronic mail at the e-mail address(es) set forth pursuant to

FRCP 5(d)(1).

[ ] BY EMAIL – I caused such document(s) to be transmitted to the office(s) of the

addressee(s) listed above by electronic mail at the e-mail address(es) set forth pursuant to

FRCP 5(d)(1).

[ ] BY FAX – I caused such document(s) to be transmitted facsimile from the offices

located in Westminster, California this business day to the aforementioned recipients.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the

United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: August 27, 2013

/s/ Lenore Albert_________________________

Lenore Albert



68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mailing List

For Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC:

Todd Boock, Victoria Edwards, Donald M Scotten & Justin D Balser

Akerman Senterfitt LLP

725 South Figueroa Street, 38th

Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017-5433

Ph: 213-688-9500

Fx: 213-627-6342

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

1 I. · 2013. 8. 31. · individual residing in Laguna Niguel, California. 15. Decedent was a...

Documents

Transcript of 1 I. · 2013. 8. 31. · individual residing in Laguna Niguel, California. 15. Decedent was a...