Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

William Gaspar; Joyal K. Gaspar v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank

February 6, 2012

WILLIAM GASPAR; JOYAL K. GASPAR, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS SERVICING AGENT FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-11; JOHN DOE 1-10; JANE DOE 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, ET. AL. DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: David Alan Ezra United States District Judge

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On February 6, 2012, the Court heard Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s ("Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") (Doc. # 74). Diana Danmeyer, Esq., appeared at the hearing on behalf of Plaintiffs William Gaspar and Joyal K. Gaspar ("Plaintiffs"); David A. Gruebner, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant. After reviewing the motion and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint with leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

I. Underlying Facts and Complaint

The case at bar relates to a mortgage loan that Plaintiffs obtained from Washington Mutual Bank, FA ("WaMu") in October 2006 to purchase a home located in Kailua Kona, Hawaii.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they inquired about "obtaining credit" through "Charter Funding" to purchase a home and were approved for an amount of $660,675.00. ("Compl.," Doc. # 1-2, at 3.) Plaintiffs assert that on or about October 11, 2006, they executed a promissory note and security agreement to purchase the home. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive a copy of the loan documents until the signing on October 11, 2006. (Id.) Plaintiffs further allege that they had not seen or received a copy of the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement which disclosed an amount financed of $660,675.00, a finance charge of $1,541,280.02, an annual percentage rate of 9.971 percent, and a security interest in the property. (Id.)

In connection with these facts, Plaintiffs assert nine separate causes of action:

* Count I: Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Violations

* Count II: Failure to Provide the Right to Rescind in Purchased Transactions

* Count III: Failure to Provide TILA Disclosures and/or Failure to Provide Timely TILA Disclosures in Purchased Transactions

* Count IV: Failure to Provide Accurate TILA Disclosures in Purchased Transactions

* Count V: Failure to Retain Documents in Purchased Transactions

* Count VI: Failure to Provide Proper Disclosures Documents in Purchased Transactions

* Count VII: Failure to Provide Timely Disclosures Documents in Purchased Transactions

* Count VIII: Failure to Provide Proper Re-disclosure Documents in Purchased Transactions

* Count IX: Failure to Provide Consumer Handbook on ARM's in Purchased Transactions

(Id. at 4--7.) Plaintiffs seek actual damages, civil damages, a release of all liens, mortgages, and deeds of trust of property, as well as removal of all negative credit reporting history. (Id. at 8.)

II. WaMu, FDIC, and Receivership

On September 25, 2008, the United States Office of Thrift Supervision seized WaMu and placed it in receivership. See Yeomalakis v. FDIC, 562 F.3d 56, 59 (1st Cir. 2009). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") acted as receiver. Id. WaMu's assets and certain liabilities were sold to Defendant pursuant to a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.