Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NATIONAL COMMUNITY

)

REINVESTMENT COALITION,

)

727 15th Street, N.W.

)

Suite 900

)

Washington, D.C. 20005

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL, INC.,

)

300 East Lombard Street

)

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

)

)

)

NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC.,

)

8699 Butterfield Avenue

)

Richmond, Virginia 23229

)

)

and

)

)

W. LANCE ANDERSON

)

2100 West 56th Street

)

Mission Hills, Kansas 66208

)

)

Defendants. )

----------------------------)

Case No. 1:07-cv-00861 (RCL)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This Complaint brought by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (the

"NCRC" or "Plaintiff') arises out of discriminatory lending policies and practices maintained by

Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc., NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. and W. Lance Anderson, the

President of both companies (collectively, "NovaStar"). The NCRC seeks a declaratory

judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and damages for NovaStar's unlawful

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 2 of 27

behavior. This action is brought under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.c.

§ 3601 et seq. (the "FHA").

2. PlaintiffNCRC is a national non-profit organization with the mission and purpose

of increasing fair and equal access to credit, capital, and banking services and products for all

Americans, regardless ofrace, national origin, or disability. NovaStar's discriminatory policies

and practices have frustrated the NCRC's mission ofincreasing the flow ofprivate capital into

underserved communities, and have caused the NCRC to expend its scarce resources on

educational programs, investigations, and litigation to identify and combat such practices.

3.

NovaStar maintains and publishes two lending eligibility policies that

discriminate purposefully and intentionally against Native Americans and people with

disabilities. Specifically, NovaStar's underwriting guidelines and policies treat "Properties

located on Indian reservations" and "Properties for adult foster care" as "Unacceptable" for its

lending business. See Excerpts of Program Manual at p. 40, attached at Exh. A. These facially

discriminatory policies explicitly treat loan applicants differently based on the protected

characteristics of race, color, racial composition, national origin, and disability. In addition,

these discriminatory policies have a significant disproportionate adverse impact on Native

Americans and people with disabilities.

4. NovaStar also discriminates against African Americans and African-American

homeowners, as well as persons and homeowners living in African-American neighborhoods, in

the policies and practices it uses to determine eligibility for mortgage loans. Specifically,

NovaStar has a policy and practice of denying all loans for applications secured by row houses in

Baltimore (hereinafter "no row house policy"). NovaStar's no row house policy has the purpose

and effect of discriminating against African Americans and African-American homeowners, as

2

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 3 of 27
well as residents and homeowners living in African-American neighborhoods in Baltimore. NovaStar's no row house policy has a similar discriminatory purpose and effect on Latinos and Latino homeowners, as well as residents and homeowners living in Latino neighborhoods in Baltimore.
5. There is no business justification for any of these three discriminatory lending policies and practices. Each policy treats persons protected by the FHA differently from nonprotected groups, and each policy has a disproportionate adverse impact on persons protected by the FHA. NovaStar's blanket refusal to make loans secured by properties on Indian reservations or those used for adult foster care discriminates against Native Americans and people with disabilities, without regard to the creditworthiness ofthe borrower. Applicants who meet traditional lending criteria, such as a strong FICO score, low loan-to-value (LTV) and/or debt-toincome (DTI) ratios, steady income, and significant assets, are excluded from consideration for a loan based solely on whether the property is located on an Indian reservation or the disability of persons intending to reside in the property. Similarly, under NovaStar's no row house policy, applicants are excluded solely on the basis of property type without regard to whether they meet traditional lending criteria.
6. IfNovaStar applied traditional lending criteria, it would significantly reduce the adverse impact on Native Americans and people with disabilities, as well as African- American and Latino homeowners, and homeowners in majority African-American and Latino neighborhoods in Baltimore, without increasing the company's risk exposure.
7. Upon information and belief, these discriminatory policies and practices have been in place and followed by NovaStar for a number of years and reflect the Defendants' current business practices. These policies and practices constitute continuing violations of the
3

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 4 of 27
FHA. 8. NovaStar's discriminatory lending policies and practices have caused, and
continue to cause, direct injury to Native Americans and homeowners living on Indian reservations, people with disabilities across the nation, and African-American and Latino residents and homeowners in Baltimore. NovaStar's refusal to provide loans secured by properties on Indian reservations and properties used for adult foster care limits homeownership and access to credit to Native Americans, and restricts housing options for people with disabilities. Its no row house policy impedes African-American and Latino borrowers and borrowers in African-American and Latino neighborhoods in Baltimore from receiving any loans at all. NovaStar's discriminatory lending policies and practices have also injured the NCRC by frustrating its mission of increasing fair and equal access to capital for underserved communities, and by requiring the NCRC to divert resources to investigate, eliminate, and counteract such practices.
PARTIES 9. PlaintiffNCRC is a national non-profit organization organized under the laws of the District of Columbia, with its principal place of business located at 727 15th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20005. The NCRC was formed in 1990 by national, regional, and local organizations to develop and harness the collective energies of community reinvestment organizations from across the country. NCRC members represent and protect traditionally underserved and vulnerable populations. Its members include community development corporations, civil rights groups, community reinvestment advocates, local and state government agencies, and churches. One ofthe NCRC's primary missions is to increase fair and equal access to credit, capital, and banking services and products to individuals, regardless of race,
4

-------------------------------------
Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 5 of 27
national origin, or disability. 10. Defendant NovaStar Financial, Inc. ("NFl") is a real estate investment fund
incorporated in the State of Maryland and headquartered in Missouri. Through its subsidiaries, NFl originates primarily single-family, non-conforming loans via a network of wholesale brokers and residential mortgage lenders throughout the nation. NFl provides the underwriting guidelines for its loans and originates, services, and securitizes its loans.
11. Defendant NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Virginia and maintains its principal office in Missouri. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NFl and serves as NFl's primary loan origination unit. As of March 2007, NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. was the 16th largest residential subprime lender in the country.
12. Defendant W. Lance Anderson, also known as Lance Anderson, is the President, Chief Operating Officer, and co-founder of NovaStar Financial, Inc. Mr. Anderson is also the President of NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. Mr. Anderson personally developed and implemented the discriminatory lending policies challenged in this First Amended Complaint. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anderson resides at 2100 West 56th Street, Mission Hills, Kansas 66208.
13. Each of the Defendants was and is the agent, employee, and representative ofthe other Defendant. Each Defendant, in doing the acts or in omitting to act as alleged in this Complaint, was acting in the course and scope of its actual or apparent authority pursuant to such agencies, or the alleged acts or omissions of each Defendant as agent were subsequently ratified and adopted by each agent as principal.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§3613, and 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343, because the claims alleged herein arise under the laws ofthe
5

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 6 of 27
United States. Venue is proper in the District of Columbia because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District.
FACTS A. NovaStar's Nationwide No Indian Reservation Policy 15. NovaStar maintains and publishes a policy that prohibits making loans secured by dwellings on Indian reservations across the country ("no Indian reservation policy"). Exh. A at 40. NovaStar's no Indian reservation policy is facially discriminatory based on race, color, racial composition, and/or national origin ofthe area in which the property is located, and explicitly treats loan applicants differently based on race, color, racial composition, and/or national origin. 16. In addition to treating loan applicants differently on a prohibited basis, NovaStar's no Indian reservation policy has a significant disproportionate adverse impact on Native Americans and Native American homeowners. According to 2000 Census data, 41.7% of Native American homeowners live on Indian reservations. By comparison, only 1.8% of white homeowners live on Indian reservations. Consequently, NovaStar's no Indian reservation policy excludes 41.7% of Native American homeowners from obtaining a loan from NovaStar, but only 1.8% of white homeowners, a ratio of more than twenty-three to one. 17. NovaStar's no Indian reservation policy has the purpose and effect oflimiting access to capital for Native Americans and Native American homeowners, and also limits the availability of housing to Native Americans. Indian reservations exist in thirty-five (35) states. See 2000 Census Map of Indian Reservations, attached as Exh. B. NovaStar lends in all of these states except Utah and Louisiana. See www.novastarhome.comlwherewelend.nsp. According to 2000 Census data, Native Americans constitute 55% ofthe population of Indian reservations
6

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 7 of 27
throughout the country, whereas Whites constitute only 33.7% ofthe reservation population. On certain larger Indian reservations, however, the percentage of the population that is Native American is even higher. For example, the Navajo Nation Reservation in Arizona has a Native American population of 96.4% compared with a white population of 2.2%; the Eastern Cherokee Reservation in North Carolina has a Native American population of 82.4% compared with a white population of 12.9%; and the Fort Peck Reservation in Montana has a Native American population of 62% compared with a white population of only 34.9%.
18. There is no business justification for NovaStar's no Indian reservation policy. Under this policy, NovaStar excludes loans without regard to traditional lending criteria. Applicants with substantial assets, a strong FICO score, a low LTV and/or DTI ratio, and steady income, would not qualify for a loan of any size based solely on the fact that their property is located on an Indian reservation. This policy intentionally treats Native Americans and Native American homeowners differently from non-Native American persons and homeowners, and has a significant disproportionate adverse impact on residents and homeowners on Indian reservations. IfNovaStar applied traditional lending criteria, it would significantly reduce the adverse impact its policy has on Native Americans without increasing the company's risk exposure.
B. NovaStar's Nationwide No Adult Foster Care Policy 19. NovaStar maintains and publishes a nationwide policy that prohibits making loans secured by dwellings used for adult foster care ("no adult foster care policy"). Exh A at 40. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) defines adult foster care as that "intended for adults with mental, sensory, and physical impairments," which "typically serves as an alternative to other more restrictive types of residential care." See
7

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 8 of 27
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbgldocs/ssbgfocus2003/0Ideradults.htmI.This definition is typical of that used by many state agencies across the country. Michigan's Department of Human Services, for example, defines adult foster care homes as "residential settings that provide 24-hour personal care, protection, and supervision for individuals who are developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically handicapped or aged who cannot live alone but who do not need continuous nursing care." See http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-1245455 27716 27717-43059--,00.html. Similarly, Utah's Office of Licensing defines adult foster care as "the provision of care in homes which are conducive to the physical, social, emotional and mental health of disabled or elderly adults who are temporarily unable to remain in their own homes." See http://www.hslic.utah.gov/adultfostercare.htm. Likewise, Minnesota defines foster care for adults as "a program operating 24 hours a day that provides functionally impaired adults with food, lodging, protection, supervision, and household services in a residence." See MINN. STAT. § 245A.02 (2006). NovaStar's no adult foster care policy is thus facially discriminatory based on disability, and explicitly treats loan applicants differently based on their association with, or residing with, persons with disabilities. Because NovaStar's no adult foster care policy excludes homes typically licensed for people with disabilities, by definition it also has a significant disproportionate adverse impact on loan applicants associated with, or living with, persons with disabilities.
20. NovaStar's no adult foster care policy has the purpose and effect oflimiting access to capital for loan applicants based on their association with, or residing with, persons with disabilities, and also limits the availability of housing to persons with disabilities. According to 2000 Census data, 49.7 million people (19.3% of the population), have some type of "long lasting condition or disability." See www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-17.pdf.As
8

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 9 of 27
the percentage of the population 65 and older increases, the number of people with disabilities will increase as well, making even greater the need for loans secured by adult foster care homes. See www.census.gov/populationlprojections/nationlsummary/np-t3-c.pdf.
21. There is no business justification for NovaStar's no adult foster care policy. Under this policy, NovaStar excludes loans without regard to traditional lending criteria. Applicants with substantial assets, a strong FICO score, a low LTV and/or DTI ratio, and steady income, would not qualify for a loan of any size based solely on the fact that their property will be used as an adult foster care home. This policy intentionally treats dwellings that house people with disabilities differently from dwellings that do not house such persons, and has an adverse disparate impact on people with disabilities. If NovaStar employed traditional lending criteria, it would significantly reduce the adverse impact on people with disabilities by increasing the capital available to owners of adult foster care homes without increasing the company's risk exposure.
C. NovaStar's No Row House Policy In Baltimore 22. In major metropolitan areas across the nation, residential housing patterns remain highly segregated by race. The vast majority of African Americans in urban areas reside in majority black census tracts, while the vast majority of white residents reside in majority white census tracts. In major cities across the nation, such as Baltimore, racial segregation is starkly defined by neighborhood; very few mixed or integrated neighborhoods exist. 23. The metropolitan statistical area ("MSA") of Baltimore-Towson, MD consists of Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Carroll County, Harford County, Howard County, and Queen Anne's County. After decades of white flight from Baltimore City, the Baltimore-Towson MSA remains highly segregated. According to 2005 census estimates,
9

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 10 of 27
African Americans constitute 65.2% of the total population of Baltimore City. In contrast, African Americans in Baltimore County, which almost completely surrounds Baltimore City, constitute only 24% ofthe population. Two-thirds of African Americans in this MSA (67%) reside in majority black census tracts, and nearly 95% of white residents live in majority white census tracts.
24. Property type is also strongly correlated to the racial composition of neighborhoods in Baltimore City. Upon information and belief, nearly two-thirds of all row houses in Baltimore City are occupied by African Americans, and the majority of row houses are located in African-American neighborhoods.
25. NovaStar maintains a discriminatory policy and practice of denying its loan products to any applicant with a row house in Baltimore. Under this no row house policy, NovaStar automatically rejects any applicant, without regard to traditional lending criteria, based solely on the type of dwelling securing the loan. Thus, for example, a loan applicant in Baltimore with a row house, despite having substantial assets, a strong FICO score, a low LTV and/or DTI ratio, and steady income, would not qualify for a loan of any size. This policy intentionally treats African-American homeowners and predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Baltimore differently from non-African-American homeowners and neighborhoods in Baltimore, and has a disproportionate adverse impact on African Americans and persons living in predominantly African-American neighborhoods in the City of Baltimore. NovaStar's no row house policy has a similar discriminatory purpose and effect on Latinos and residents of Latino neighborhoods in Baltimore.
26. In January 2006, a tester for the NCRC called NovaStar and told the agent that he was interested in information about a loan to purchase a house in Baltimore. The NovaStar agent
10

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 11 of 27
asked what type of house he was buying and asked for the location ofthe house. After the tester stated that the house was a row house, the agent stated that the company had stopped financing row houses a few months before the tester's call. The agent asked where the house was located, and then asked a colleague ifhe knew where the house was located. After looking up the address, the agent informed the tester that "we don't do row houses in Baltimore."
27. In February 2006, another tester for the NCRC called NovaStar and requested information about financing a row house in Baltimore. The NovaStar agent who answered the call stated that the company was not currently financing row houses in Baltimore. Upon information and belief, NovaStar has continued to enforce this policy up to the present time.
28. There is no business justification for NovaStar' s no row house policy. If NovaStar employed traditional lending criteria, rather than an applicant's property type, it would significantly reduce the adverse impact that this policy has on African-American and Latino homeowners and homeowners in majority African-American and Latino neighborhoods in Baltimore without increasing the company's risk exposure.
29. On March 16,2006, the NCRC filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging that NovaStar's no row house policy violated the FHA. As of May 9,2007, HUD had not issued a determination on this complaint.
INJURY CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS' POLICIES AND PRACTICES 30. Through numerous workshops, conferences, systemic testing, reports, education and outreach, and "best practice" compliance initiatives, the NCRC has provided education, training, and technical assistance to its members, community organizations, and advocates at the local, regional, and national level to promote fair lending and access to capital in low-income and minority communities across the country. The unlawful discriminatory policies and
11

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 12 of 27
practices of NovaStar identified above have injured the NCRC by: (a) interfering with those efforts and programs ofthe NCRC intended to promote fair lending; and (b) requiring the NCRC to commit scarce resources, including substantial staff time, to investigate complaints and to review NovaStar's lending practices, including its three discriminatory policies that adversely affect minorities and people with disabilities.
31. The NCRC has devoted and continues to devote significant resources to addressing lending discrimination against Native Americans, people with disabilities and minorities affected by discriminatory policies. In May 2003, the NCRC and the Native American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC) conducted a survey of Native Americans on Indian reservations to determine areas where abusive and discriminatory lending to Native Americans was most prominent. The NCRC and NAIHC later issued a report in June 2003 with these survey results and began a campaign that continues to this day to educate the public about lending discrimination against Native Americans and the need for greater access to capital for Native Americans, particularly those on Indian reservations. The NCRC has also worked and continues to work with member organizations advocating for people with disabilities and racial minorities to educate and counsel the public about discriminatory lending policies and practices. The NCRC's efforts include working with businesses and consumers to address the effects of discriminatory lending and/or predatory lending in communities with less access to capital.
32. NovaStar's discriminatory lending policies and practices have required the NCRC to engage in an education and outreach campaign, and to develop educational materials to identify and counteract the unlawful actions of NovaStar, thus diverting the NCRC's resources from other testing, education, counseling, and capacity-building services. Defendants' discriminatory lending policies and practices have also frustrated the NCRC's mission and
12

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 13 of 27
purpose of increasing fair and equal access to credit, capital, and banking services and products for all Americans, regardless of race, national origin, or disability. Defendants'discriminatory lending policies and practices have required the NCRC, and will require the NCRC in the future, to spend additional resources to counteract NovaStar's discriminatory conduct.
33. As a result of Defendants' discriminatory conduct, individuals in the communities served by the NCRC have been: (a) discouraged from applying for loans; and (b) deprived of equal access to credit, capital, and banking services and products. As a result of Defendants' discriminatory conduct, communities served by the NCRC and its member organizations have been denied the flow of capital, the provision of banking services, and the economic growth that accompanies capital and banking services. In response, the NCRC has made substantial efforts and expended considerable resources to investigate the existence and effects of NovaStar's lending policies and to ensure equal lending opportunities for potential borrowers.
34. The NCRC has been, and continues to be, adversely affected by the acts, policies, and practices of Defendants and/or their respective agents.
35. The acts, policies, and practices of Defendants set forth herein constitute continuing violations ofthe FHA. Unless enjoined, NovaStar will continue to engage in the unlawful acts and practices described above.
36. Defendants' unlawful actions described above were, and are, intentional and willful, and/or have been, and are, implemented with callous and reckless disregard for the federally protected rights of the NCRC, its constituent members, and the individuals and communities it serves.
13

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 14 of 27
CAUSE OF ACTION (Federal Fair Housing Act) 37. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein. 38. Defendants' acts, policies, and practices, including those through its agents, as described herein, violate the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.c. §§ 3604(a), (b), (c), and (t) and 3605: (a) Defendants' acts, policies, and practices, have made and continue to make housing unavailable on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a); (b) Defendants' acts, policies, and practices, have provided and continue to provide different terms, conditions, and privileges of sale of housing, as well as different services and facilities in connection therewith, on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); (c) Defendants' published policies and statements have expressed and continue to express a preference on the basis of race, color, handicap, and/or national origin, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c);
14

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 15 of 27
(d) Defendants' acts, policies, and practices, have made and continue to make housing unavailable on the basis of handicap, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1);
(e) Defendants' acts, policies, and practices, have provided and continue to provide different terms, conditions, and privileges of sale of housing, as well as different services and facilities in connection therewith, on the basis of handicap, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2); and
(f) Defendants' acts, policies, and practices, have provided and continue to provide different terms, conditions and privileges on the basis of race, color, handicap and/or national origin in connection with the making of real estate-related transactions, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3605.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as of right.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant it the following relief: (1) enter a declaratory judgment that the foregoing acts, policies, and practices of the Defendants violate the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq; (2) enter a preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants and their directors, officers, agents and employees from continuing to publish, implement, and enforce the illegal, discriminatory conduct described herein pending the entry of a final judgment in this matter;
15

-------------------------------------------------
Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 16 of 27
(3) enter a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants and their directors, officers, agents and employees from continuing to publish, implement, and enforce the illegal, discriminatory conduct described herein and directing the Defendants and their directors, officers, agents and employees to take all affirmative steps necessary to remedy the effects of the illegal, discriminatory conduct described herein and to prevent similar occurrences in the future;
(4) award compensatory damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined by the jury that would fully compensate Plaintiff for the diversion of resources and frustration of mission that have been caused by the conduct of the Defendants alleged herein;
(5) award punitive damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined by the jury that would punish the Defendants for the willful, wanton and reckless conduct alleged herein and that would effectively deter similar conduct in the future;
(6) award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §§ 3613(c)(2); and
(7) order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable. August 27,2008.
Attorneys for Plaintiff 16

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 17 of 27
Exhibit A

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 18 of 27
'WI
·~N·O· Vr.A/eU' 'fAR

Program Manual
Effective February 6, 2007

Effective 02/06/07

07 0861
FILED
MAY - 9 2007
NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 19 of 27
..;
~VA5TAR'
Table of Contents
Welcome to NovaStar
Chapter 1 - Mortgage Loan Subm ission
1.1 Using NovaStar's Automated Underwriting System (NovaStarIS) 1.2 Loan Submission 1.3 Interest Rate Lock-In 1.4 Credit Grade Amendment 1.5 Product Change 1.6 Fees 1.7 Third Party Originations 1.8 Net Tangible Benefit
Chapter 2 - Credit
2.1 Type of Credit Report Required 2.2 Credit Grading 2.3 Minimum Credit Requirements 2.4 Qualifying Rates 2.5 Credit Score Analysis 2.6 Verification of Mortgage/Rent 2.7 No Housing History 2.8 Borrower(s) Who Already Own Real Estate 2.9 Payment Shock 2.10 Standard Automated DTI Exceptions 2.11 Installment Loans 2.12 Collections, Judgments, Charge-off, Tax Liens and Repossessions 2.13 Bankruptcies 2.14 Foreclosures/Notice of Default (NOD}/Forbearance 2.15 Consumer Credit Counseling Services 2.16 Lease/Rent with Option to Purchase (Owner-occupied only) 2.17 Rent Credits 2.18 Installment Land ContracUAIl Inclusive Trust Deed 2.19 Mortgage/Rents Held by Private Parties 2.20 Co-Signed Obligations 2.21 Deferred Student Loans
Effective 02/06/07

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 20 of 27

Chapter 3 - Income

Table of Contents

3.1 Full Documentation 3.2 Limited Documentation 3.3 Stated Income 3.4 NINA/No Doc 3.5 Employment by a Relative 3.6 Income Analysis (Income Documentation Requirements Table) 3.7 PartMTime/Seasonal/Second Job Income 3.8 Unemployment and Welfare Benefits 3.9 Notes Receivable 3.10 Trust Income 3.11 Pension Income 3.12 VA Benefits 3.13 Disability Income 3.14 Mortgage Interest Differential Payments 3.15 Car Allowances 3.16 Trailing Spouse Income 3.17 Deferred Income 3.18 Future Raises 3.19 Disposable Income 3.20 NonMOccupant COMMortgagor

Chapter 4 - Assets

4.1 Verification of Funds 4.2 Gift Funds 4.3 Gifts of Equity 4.4 Funds Borrowed Against Other Assets 4.5 Sale of Other Assets 4.6 Bridge Loans 4.7 IRAlKeogh/401 K 4.8 Relocation Packages 4.9 Subordinate Financing 4.10 Contributions or Secondary Financing by NonMProfit Agencies 4.11 Silent Seconds 4.12 Ineligible Sources of Down Payment 4.13 Reserve Requirements 4.14 Seller Concessions

Effective 02/06/07

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 21 of 27
Table of Contents
Chapter 5 - Collateral and Appraisal Requirements
5.1 Acceptable Property Types 5.2 Minimum Value Requirements 5.3 Unacceptable Property Types 5.4 Documentation 5.5 Appraisal Updates 5.6 Appraiser Qualification Requirements 5.7 Condominiums 5.8 Modular Homes 5.9 HUD Homes 5.10 Acreage, Unique Homes, and Rural Properties 5.11 Multiple Parcels/Multiple Tax ID Numbers 5.12 Land to Value Ratios 5.13 Leaseholds 5.14 New Construction 5.15 Two to Four Family Units 5.16 Concentration/Density Limitations 5.17 Documented Improvements 5.18 Prior Transfers 5.19 Security Bars 5.20 Mixed Use 5.21 Property Rights Appraised 5.22 Review Appraisal and Second Appraisal Requirements 5.23 Property Identification 5.24 Neighborhood 5.25 Neighborhood Analysis 5.26 Present Land Use 5.27 Predominant Value 5.28 Age of Subject Property 5.29 Site View 5.30 Environmental Reports 5.31 Utilities and Streets 5.32 Highest and Best Use 5.33 Improvements 5.34 Floor Plans/Building Sketches 5.35 Structure 5.36 Permanent Heat Source 5.37 Improvement Analysis 5.38 Remaining Economic Life 5.39 Valuation Analysis
Effective 02/06/07

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 22 of 27

Table of Contents

-..I
~N'OVrAlUe' 'lAI{ -.-.-

5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.44 5.45 5.46 5.4 7 5.48 5.49 5.50 5.51
5.52

Square Footage Amenities/Extras/Special Items Deferred Maintenance Depreciation Market Data Prior Sale/Listing History Com parables Adjustments to Comparables Time Adjustments Sale or Financing Concession Comments and Final Reconciliation Sales Price Discrepancy
Minimums

Chapter 6 - Miscellaneous

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13
6.14

Escrow Holdbacks Age of Documents Ownership Loans to Customers and Their Employees
Legal Resident Aliens Foreign National Program Maximum LTV and Loan Amounts Ownership Seasoning Requirements Cash-Out Refinances Non-Arm's Length Transaction Inherited/Gifted Properties Number of Loans to One Person Refinancing Zero or Low Interest Rate Loans
Home Improvement Policy

Chapter 7 - Closing Procedures
7.1 Closing Procedure for Loans Closed in NovaStar's Name 7.2 Closing Procedure for Loans Closed in Your Name with Docs Prepared by
NovaStar 7.3 Hazard Insurance 7.4 Flood Insurance 7.5 Wind Insurance

Effective 02/06/07

., Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 23 of 27
~vRirAR'
Table of Contents 7.6 Title Commitment 7.7 Power of Attorney 7.8 Leasehold Property 7.9 Truth-in-Lending/Rescission 7.10 Prepayment Penalties 7.11 Maximum Points/Fees 7.12 Texas Cash Out Transactions 7.13 Escrow Closing States 7.14 Natural Disasters
Chapter 8 - Correspondent Loan Transactions/Closed Loan Purchases 8.1 Correspondent Approval Process 8.2 Delivery Requirements 8.3 Locking/Pricing 8.4 Loan Documents 8.5 Closing the Loan 8.6 First Payment Due NovaStar 8.7 Borrower Notification by Correspondent 8.8 Servicing 8.9 Hazard Insurance/Flood Insurance 8.10 Flood Certification 8.11 Tax Service Contracts
Chapter 9 - Payment Option ARM Guidelines 9 Payment Option ARM Guidelines Chapter 10 - Interest Only Guidelines 10 Interest Only Guidelines
Effective 02/06/07

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 24 of 27
..,.,
---- ~VASTAR .

5.2 Minimum Value Requirements

NovaStar's minimum property value requirements are:

~ U. S. Citizens and Resident Aliens: None

~ Non-Resident Aliens:

$75,000

~ Piggyback Program:

$75,000

5.3 Unacceptable Property Types

NovaStar will not make loans secured by the property types listed below:

» Properties secured by Habitat for Humanity loans. (Revised 1/9/07)

» Properties subject to a life estate.

(Revised 1/9/07)

~ Rural properties in Alaska.

(Revised 5/16/06)

~ Stated, NINA and NoDoc loans in the state of Ohio.

~ Properties in default or foreclosure where the loan is a non-arms length

transaction and may be considered a bail-out.

(Revised 7/24/06)

~ Properties in Alabama on which a foreclosure has been completed within the 12 months prior to NovaStar closing a new loan on the property (due to redemption period required by state statute).

~ Relocated homes.
~ Manufactured/mobile housing and manufactured/mobile homes with stick-built additions.
~ Commercial use or a mix of commercial/residential properties (homebased business may be acceptable depending on the type of business).
~ Time-share units.
~ Cooperative units.
Continued ...

Effective 02/06/07

39

. .

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 25 of 27

.I
~dvASrrAR

Unacceptable Property Types continued ...
~ Properties currently listed for sale.
Note: Properties that have been listed for sale in the preceding 12 months may be acceptable, with evidence that the listing has expired or been cancelled at least 90 days before submission. Properties listed for sale within the last 90 days are unacceptable. A satisfactory explanation must be included describing why the property was listed and a copy of MLS to verify the most recent listing price, any listing reductions and length of time listed. Value will be based on the lesser of the appraised value or last listing price. Other restrictions may apply.
(Revised 1/9/07)
~ Unimproved or raw land.
~ Earth homes.
~ Geodesic domes.
~ Floating homes.
~ Cross-collateralized properties that are not adjacent to each other.
~ Homes that appear to be a major over-improvement or are atypical for the area.
~ Properties located on Indian reservations.
~ Single-family residences with less than 750 sq. ft. living space, without market support.

) Condominiums with less than 500 sq. ft. living space, without market support.
~ Boarding/Rooming Houses, including Bed and Breakfast Inns.
~ Properties used for adult foster care.
~ Properties used for illegal purposes.
~ Properties that cannot be completely rebuilt due to zoning restrictions.
~ Working Farms.
) Condominium projects with less than 5 units.
~ Condominium conversion projects where the HOA has not been turned over to the home owners for at least one year and/or does not meet all other NovaStar condominium guidelines.
(Revised 8/15/06)

Effective 02/06/07

40

. .

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 26 of 27

Exhibit B

. •

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 58 Filed 03/27/09 Page 27 of 27

American Indian Reservations

MAP KEY
• • FnIeddaienraRIAesmeervriactalonns • State American Indian Reservations

07 0861 FILED
MAY - 9 Z007
NANCY MAYER WHITIINGTON, CLERK
U.S. DiSTRICT CQURT

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

NATIONAL COMMUNITY

)

REINVESTMENT COALITION,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 07-861 (RCL)

)

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is defendant W. Lance Anderson’s Motion [63] to Dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of the motion, the opposition, the reply thereto, and the record herein, the Court will deny defendant’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff National Community Reinvestment Coalition alleges violations of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. (“FHA”) by defendants NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. (“NMI”) and its parent company, NovaStar Financial, Inc. (“NFI”) (collectively, “NovaStar”). Recently, plaintiff amended its complaint to add W. Lance Anderson (“Anderson”), the President, Chief Operating Officer, and co-founder of NFI and the President of NMI, as an individual defendant. Anderson has moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Anderson
1

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 2 of 12
alleges that his involvement in the making and implementation of NovaStar’s policies against making loans secured by homes on Indian reservations, homes used for adult foster care, and row houses in Baltimore, Maryland was limited to his capacity as a corporate officer. (See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 2-3.) Anderson asserts that for the foregoing reason, combined with the fact that he is a nonresident who has no substantial contacts with the District of Columbia, the Court should decline to exercise personal jurisdiction over him. (See id. at 3.) Because Anderson’s contacts with the District are all in his corporate capacity, defendant argues, the fiduciary shield doctrine makes jurisdiction over him improper. Plaintiff argues in response that Anderson can be tried as a defendant in his personal capacity under the “more an employee” exception to the fiduciary shield doctrine. (See Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss 1-2.)
II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard
When personal jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a factual basis for the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over each individual defendant. Crane v. N.Y. Zoological Soc’y, 894 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The plaintiff must allege specific facts that connect the defendant with the forum. Second Amendment Found. v. U.S. Conference of Mayors, 274 F.3d 521, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The plaintiff may not aggregate factual allegations concerning multiple defendants in order to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over any individual defendant. See Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 331-32 (1980) (rejecting aggregation of co-defendants’ forum contacts in determining personal jurisdiction because “the requirements of International Shoe must be met as to each defendant over whom a… court exercises jurisdiction”). When contemplating personal jurisdiction, the Court is not required to
2

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 3 of 12
treat all of the plaintiff’s allegations as true, but “may receive and weigh affidavits and other relevant matter to assist in determining the jurisdictional facts.” United States v. Philip Morris Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 116, 120 n. 4 (D.D.C. 2000) (Kessler, J.); see also Capital Bank Int’l, Ltd. v. Citigroup, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 72, 74 (D.D.C. 2003) (Urbina, J.); Novak-Canzeri v. Al Saud, 864 F. Supp. 203, 206 (D.D.C. 1994) (Friedman, J.) (“the Court must accept Plaintiff’s claims as true in ruling on a 12(b)(2) motion, unless they are directly contradicted by an affidavit”).
B. Personal Jurisdiction There are two variants of personal jurisdiction: “(1) general, ‘all purpose’ adjudicatory
authority to entertain a suit against a defendant without regard to the claim’s relationship vel non to the defendant’s forum-linked activity, and (2) specific jurisdiction to entertain controversies based on acts of a defendant that touch and concern the forum.” Kopff v. Battaglia, 425 F. Supp. 2d 76, 81 (D.D.C. 2006) (Bates, J.) (citing Steinberg v. Int’l Criminal Police Org., 672 F.2d 927, 928 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). General jurisdiction requires that the defendant’s contacts within the forum be “continuous and systematic” in order for the defendant to be forced to defend a suit arising out of any subject matter unrelated to the defendant’s activities within the forum. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415-16 (1984). Alternatively, the District of Columbia may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant if the plaintiff demonstrates that (1) the District of Columbia’s long arm statute, D.C. Code § 13-423, authorizes jurisdiction, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with the federal requirement of constitutional due process. D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 534 F. Supp. 2d 86, 90 (D.D.C. 2008) (Bates, J.). The District of Columbia long-arm statute provides:
A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person’s-
3

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 4 of 12
(1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia; (2) contracting to supply services in the District of Columbia; (3) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of Columbia; (4) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District of Columbia if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, in the District of Columbia. D.C. Code. § 13-423(a)(1)-(4).
1. The Court lacks general jurisdiction over Anderson Plaintiff has not, and cannot, establish a basis for general personal jurisdiction over Anderson. A District of Columbia court may exercise general personal jurisdiction “as to any claim for relief” over a person who is domiciled in or maintains a principal place of business in the District of Columbia. D.C. Code § 13-422. Anderson resides in Kansas. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) He does not own any real property in the District of Columbia nor does he maintain an office in the District of Columbia, and he works for NFI and NMI out of their offices in Kansas City, Missouri. (Anderson Decl. ¶ 2-6.) Plaintiff has thus alleged “no facts to satisfy the steep requirement of continuous and systematic contacts with the District of Columbia sufficient to impose general jurisdiction.” D’Onofrio, 534 F. Supp. 2d at 90.
2. The Court may exercise specific jurisdiction over Anderson because the “more than an employee” exception to the fiduciary shield doctrine applies to Anderson
Plaintiff can establish a basis for specific personal jurisdiction over Anderson based on the “more than an employee” exception to the fiduciary shield doctrine. The fiduciary shield
4

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 5 of 12
doctrine counsels that “personal jurisdiction over the employees or officers of a corporation in their individual capacities must be based on their personal contacts with the forum and not their acts and contacts carried out solely in a corporate capacity.” Wiggins v. Equifax, 853 F. Supp. 500, 503 (D.D.C. 1994) (Lamberth, J.). When contacts with the forum are exclusively in relation to the defendant’s corporate responsibility, the defendant is “clearly not ‘doing business’ with the District of Columbia. Id. It is important to note that “as a general rule, courts cannot exert jurisdiction over individual corporate officers or employees ‘just because the court has jurisdiction over the corporation.’” Kopff, 425 F. Supp. 2d at 84 (quoting Flocco v. State Farm Mu. Auto. Ins. Co., 752 A.2d 147, 162 (D.C. 2000)). The plaintiff therefore must demonstrate that the individual defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction “apart from any jurisdiction that might exist over their corporate-entity employers.” D’Onofrio, 534 F. Supp. 2d at 90-91 (citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 n.13 (1984)).
For example, the fact that two employees of a company that had contacts with the District “may have acted in a supervisory capacity over persons with contacts with the District… fail[ed] to create personal jurisdiction.” Wiggins, 583 F. Supp. at 503. Similarly, another judge in this Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over a company’s Chairman and CEO who was responsible for setting policies and procedures for the company and was involved in the company’s day-to-day employment decision-making processes, even though the plaintiff complained about an employment decision, because “[a]ll of these alleged jurisdictional facts involve[d] the individual defendants’ official duties for [the corporation] – setting policies, communicating with employees, conducting investigations, and making employment decisions.” Richard v. Bell Atlantic Corp., Inc., 976 F. Supp. 40, 49-50 (D.D.C. 1997) (Urbina, J.). The Court pointed out that the plaintiffs had failed to plead sufficient jurisdictional facts because
5

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 6 of 12
“acts committed within the scope of employment cannot be imputed to the individual defendants to establish personal jurisdiction over them.” Id. at 50 (citing Keeton, 465 U.S. at 781 note 13; Wiggins, 853 F. Supp. at 503). It is clear from these decisions that an individual’s role as a corporate officer, without more, is not a sufficient basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the officer in his individual capacity.
However, the fiduciary shield doctrine is inapplicable when the defendant is found to be “more than an employee” of the corporation. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, this Court can exercise jurisdiction over Anderson if he has purposefully established “minimum contacts with [the District of Columbia] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). For example, the District of Columbia Superior Court found personal jurisdiction over two corporate officers in their individual capacities because they were “the only corporate officers [of the corporation] and set company policies and procedures,” were “active in day-to-day operations of the company,” and had direct “involvement and supervision of all aspects of the company.” Covington & Burlington v. Int’l Marketing & Research, Inc., Civ. No. 01-4360, 2003 WL 21384825 at *6 (D.C. Super. 2003). The Superior Court in that case concluded that the corporate officers were “more than mere employees” and so they were “not insulated from [the] Court’s jurisdiction.” Id. In its holding that the corporate officers could be sued in their individual capacities, the Superior Court relied upon the determination by the D.C. Court of Appeals that “a corporate officer may be held liable for acts of the corporation ‘when there is an act or omission by the officer which logically leads to the inference that he had a share in the wrongful acts of the corporation which constitute the offense.’” Id. (citing Vuitch v. Furr, 482
6

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 7 of 12
A.2d 811, 821 (D.C. 1984)). Another judge of this Court has twice recognized Covington, but in both of those cases he determined that the exception did not apply to the relevant facts. In Kopff v. Battaglia, a “chief programmer” of a blast-fax advertising firm was found to not be as integrally involved with the company as the defendants in Covington. He was not an officer and he did not have “any role in directing or controlling company policy.” Kopff, 425 F. Supp. 2d at 85. Another judge in this Court held that the Court could not properly exercise personal jurisdiction over two nonresident corporate executives when all of the assertions made against the executives in the plaintiff’s complaint were actions taken pursuant to the executives’ corporate duties and responsibilities. D’Onofrio, 534 F. Supp. 2d at 92. The executives’ corporate duties and responsibilities were not enough to satisfy an exercise of personal jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) of the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute. Id. at 93.
Plaintiff argues that jurisdiction over Anderson can be achieved under subsection (a)(1) of the long-arm statute. Subsection (a)(1) “is given an expansive interpretation that is coextensive with the due process clause.” Helmer v. Doletskaya, 393 F.3d 201, 205 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting Mouzavires v. Baxter, 434 A.2d 988, 992 (D.C. 1981)). Therefore, because this Court has already held that the due process clause has been satisfied through NMI’s transactions with District residents, subsection (a)(1) of the longarm statute is satisfied by those transactions as well. Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s finding in the March 27 Order [54] that the NovaStar Defendants received thousands of loan applications and made hundreds of loans in the District of Columbia also satisfies the “doing business” requirement subsection (a)(1) with respect to Anderson. (See Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 4 [65].) However, the loan applications represent NovaStar’s contacts with the District of Columbia and are only relevant in the question of whether Anderson has sufficient contacts with the forum if the fiduciary shield does not
7

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 8 of 12
protect Anderson from being subject to the Court’s jurisdiction in his personal capacity. As a long line of cases has consistently held, “when there are no allegations [in the complaint] that a nonresident defendant’s contacts with a jurisdiction were for the purpose of transacting business as an individual, but rather were only to perpetuate a corporation’s business, that defendant cannot be sued individually under the ‘transacting business’ prong of the long-arm statute.” Flocco v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 752 A.2d 147, 162 (D.C. 2000) (citing Quinto v. Legal Times of Washington, Inc., 506 F.Supp. 554, 558 (D.D.C. 1981) (Flannery, J.); Wiggins, 854 F.Supp. at 503). Thus, Anderson is not transacting any business in his personal capacity that would subject him to subsection (a)(1) of the long-arm statute, but absent the fiduciary shield doctrine, the Court can attribute NFI and NMI’s connections with the District of Columbia to Anderson. Defendant companies clearly have such contacts: between 1999 and 2007 NMI received 3,021 loan applications from District of Columbia residents, and 1,230 of those applications were approved with loans made. (Pl.’s Reply Ex. D [30-5] (Decl. of Caitlin Parton) (reviewing Home Mortgage Disclosure Act records).)
The only fact alleged in plaintiff’s amended complaint regarding Anderson is that he “is the President, Chief Operating Officer, and co-founder of NovaStar Financial, Inc. Anderson is also the President of NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. Anderson personally developed and implemented the discriminatory lending policies challenged in this First Amended Complaint.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) However, the Court may receive and weigh affidavits and other relevant matter to assist it in determining jurisdictional facts. See D’Onofrio, 534 F. Supp. 2d at 89-90. Based on the interrogatory answers that Anderson filed on May 15, 2009, Anderson argues that this Court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over him. Anderson stated in his interrogatory responses that he has “no knowledge of any personal involvement in the original adoption of the policy
8

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 9 of 12
regarding loans secured by properties located on Indian reservations or in Indian country,” “no knowledge of any personal involvement in the original adoption of the policy regarding loans secured by properties used for adult foster care,” and, at best, vague recollections regarding NMI’s decision not to lend on row homes in Baltimore, Maryland. (See Resp. to Interrog. Nos. 2, 4. 6 [65-3].) Anderson also notes that he has not personally had any communications with investors regarding whether or not they would purchase loans secured by properties located on Indian reservations or in Indian country, properties used for adult foster care, or row houses in Baltimore, Maryland. (See Resp. to Interrog. No. 8 [65-3].) Since 1996, all of Anderson’s travel to the District of Columbia has been in connection with his responsibilities as an officer of NFI and NMI. (See Resp. to Interrog. No. 10 [65-3].) Anderson estimates that his business travel to the District of Columbia varied from year to year and that the number of trips he took ranged from not one in a single year to as many as three per year. (See id.)
However, Anderson’s interrogatory answers directly contradict his deposition testimony from May 8, 2009. In his deposition testimony, Anderson admits that he personally brought the Indian reservation and adult foster care restrictions to NMI from his previous employer, another mortgage lender, and that he was personally involved in the decision to exclude row homes in Baltimore as collateral for loans. (See Pl.’s Notice of Supplemental Evidence, Ex. A, May 9, 2009 Dep. Tr. Of W. Lance Anderson [66-2] at 48-52, 92-93.) Anderson testified that in 1996, when he was president of Saxon Mortgage, Inc., he and a colleague, Scott Hartman, decided to start NFI. (Id. at 12-13.) Anderson and Hartman subsequently co-founded NFI and its subsidiary NMI in the summer of 1996 and were its first two employees. (Id. at 14-15.) Anderson further testified in his deposition that the policies of Saxon Mortgage, where he previously served as president, were the “core template” for NMI’s “Program Manual.” (Id. at
9

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 10 of 12
48-50.) The Program Manual contained the restrictions on Indian reservation lending and adult foster care lending, which had also been contained in Saxon Mortgage’s policies. (Id. at 51-52.) Anderson also testified that he and another employee, Manny Palazzo, were the only creators of the original NMI Program Manual that included these restrictions. (Id. at 49.) Anderson confirmed that the restriction on properties located on Indian reservations or used for adult foster care were in NMI’s first Program Manual in 1996 and remained in the Program Manual until 2008 when NMI stopped making loans. (Id. at 51-53.) Anderson’s deposition testimony also reveals that he was one of three people on NMI’s Credit Committee who discussed whether to impose restrictions on Baltimore row houses in 2005. (Id. at 92-93.) Anderson admitted that he and the other members of the Credit Committee “felt it was [their] responsibility not to lend in that area [Baltimore row houses]” given the “very large fraud ring going on at that time in Baltimore.” (Id.)
It is clear from the deposition transcript and Anderson’s interrogatory answers that Anderson’s testimony is entirely at odds with representations in his reply brief that he was not responsible for the discriminatory policies challenged in the Amended Complaint. In determining whether a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction exists, “factual discrepancies appearing in the record must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff.” Crane, 894 F. 2d at 456 (citing Reuber v. United States, 750 F. 2d 1039, 1052 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). The allegations in plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Anderson’s deposition testimony admitting his responsibility for the challenged policies should therefore be regarded as true for the purposes of determining whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Anderson. Anderson’s testimony clearly shows that he was in a position of authority at both NFI and NMI and was directly
10

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 11 of 12
involved in creating, implementing, and maintaining the three policies challenged in the Amended Complaint.
As a result of the significant influence that he exerts over the NovaStar defendants’ policies, procedures, and operations, and his involvement in the creation, implementation, and maintenance of the three policies at issue, Anderson can be considered “more than an employee” of the NovaStar entities and therefore may be held liable in his individual capacity for the allegedly discriminatory policies. The “more than an employee” exception raised by plaintiff comes into play in the instant case because Anderson is more like the officers in Covington than the employees in Kopff and D’Onofrio. Although Anderson is not the sole officer of the defendant entities, as was the case in Covington, Anderson, as president, does appear to exert significant influence over the NovaStar defendants’ policies, procedures, and operations. Furthermore, the allegedly discriminatory policies’ existence is at the core of the instant case. Unlike in D’Onofrio and Richard, in which the corporate officers could not be held liable in their personal capacities for directing their subordinates, Anderson was not joined as a defendant for directing subordinates to implement the policies and procedures, but rather because he played a role in the initial creation of the policies at issue. Moreover, while Anderson’s situation appears to parallel that of the chairman and CEO in Richard, where the court declined to exercise personal jurisdiction over the chairman and CEO of a company because all of the alleged jurisdictional facts involved the defendant’s official duties for the corporation, in that case the “more than an employee” exception to the fiduciary shield had not yet been recognized and was not even discussed in the case. See Richard, 976 F. Supp. at 49-50. Given the similarities between Anderson and the officers in Covington, Anderson falls under the “more than an employee” exception to the fiduciary shield doctrine. The fact that Anderson played a role in the
11

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 72 Filed 06/22/09 Page 12 of 12 creation of the corporate policies at issue in the instant suit “logically leads to the inference that he had a share in the wrongful acts of the corporation which constitute the offense,” supporting his designation as “more than an employee” of NovaStar. See Vuitch, 482 A.2d at 821. This Court can thus exercise personal jurisdiction over Anderson.
III. CONCLUSION & ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant W. Lance Anderson’s Motion [63] to Dismiss plaintiff’s complaint be and is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge, June 22, 2009.
12

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 80 Filed 12/01/09 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

NATIONAL COMMUNITY

)

REINVESTMENT COALITION,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v.

)

Case No. 1:07-cv-00861 (RCL)

)

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL, INC., et al. )

____________________________________)

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties, through

their respective counsel, having entered into a settlement agreement resolving the claims

included in the First Amended Complaint, hereby stipulate and agree that the above-entitled

action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ Bradley H. Blower________ John P. Relman (DC Bar No. 405500) Bradley H. Blower (DC Bar No. 421112) Glenn Schlactus (DC Bar No. 475950) RELMAN & DANE PLLC 1225 Nineteenth Street, #600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-728-1888 202-728-0848 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff NCRC

_/s/ David M. Souders_________ Mitchel H. Kider (DC Bar No. 358531) David M. Souders (DC Bar No. 441491) WEINER BRODSKY SIDMAN KIDER PC 1300 19th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 638-2000 (202) 638-2011 (fax)
Attorneys for Defendants

Dated December 1, 2009

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 80 Filed 12/01/09 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Stipulation of Dismissal was electronically filed on December 1, 2009 using the Court’s CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all counsel.
/s/_Caitlin Parton_____ Paralegal
2

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 15 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

NATIONAL COMMUNITY,

)

REINVESTMENT COALITION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL, INC. and )

NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 07-0861 (RCL)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Presently before the Court is defendants’ Motion [3] to Dismiss plaintiff’s claims under

42 U.S.C. § 3604 from the complaint. Upon consideration of the motion [3], the opposition and

reply thereto, the applicable law and the record herein, the Court finds that defendants’ motion

[3] should be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff National Community Reinvestment Coalition brings this action under the Fair

Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., as amended (“FHA”), against NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.,

and its parent company, NovaStar Financial, Inc. (collectively, “defendants”). Plaintiff alleges

that defendants’ policies against making loans secured by homes on Indian reservations, homes

used for adult foster care, and row houses in Baltimore City violate the fair housing laws because

these policies intentionally discriminate and have an unnecessary and unjustified disproportionate

adverse impact. (See Compl. ¶¶ 3–8.) Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants’ policies

violate 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), (b), (c), and (f) and 3605 of the Fair Housing Act. (See Compl. ¶

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 15 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 6
37.) Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s causes of action under § 3604 for failure to
state a cognizable claim. Defendants assert that § 3604 deals with discrimination in the sale and rental of residential housing and therefore does not govern discrimination in the making or purchasing of mortgage loans. (See Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. to Dismiss 1.) According to defendants, § 3605 is the only vehicle for discrimination claims involving the financing of residential housing. (See id.)
II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), this Court will dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to plead "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007) (abrogating the prior standard which required appearance, beyond a doubt, that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief). This Court must construe the allegations and facts in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must grant the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged. Barr v. Clinton, 370 F.3d 1196, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citing Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). However, the Court need not accept asserted inferences or conclusory allegations that are unsupported by the facts set forth in the complaint. Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276. B. Section 3604
The sole question before the Court on this motion to dismiss is whether § 3604 applies to
2

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 15 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 6
mortgage financing. That section provides in relevant part that “it shall be unlawful . . . [t]o refuse to sell or rent . . . or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) (emphasis added). Section 3604 further prohibits discrimination “in the provision of services or facilities in connection” with the sale or rental of a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). Section 3605 of the FHA prohibits discrimination against any person in making available real estate-related transactions which include the making or purchasing of loans. 42 U.S.C. § 3605 (a)-(b).
Defendants argue that since § 3605 specifically deals with discrimination in the making or purchasing of loans, this Court’s adoption of an interpretation of § 3604 which encompasses financing would render § 3605 superfluous. Defendants urge this Court to adopt the interpretation that § 3604 applies exclusively to discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, while § 3605 deals with discrimination in mortgage financing. Such an interpretation, however, ignores the broad language in § 3604 which goes beyond mere refusal to sell or rent by also banning practices that “otherwise make unavailable or deny” housing. As previously stated by this Court, “the broad, general language reflected in phrases such as ‘otherwise make unavailable or deny’ was intended to be flexible enough to cover multiple types of housing-related transactions.” Nat’l Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 208 F. Supp. 2d 46, 56 (D.D.C. 2002) (Sullivan, J.). Indeed, a less restrictive interpretation of § 3604 is consistent with the broad purpose of the FHA which is to “promote integrated housing patterns and to discourage discrimination in access to housing.” Id. at 57 (citing Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 211-12 (1972).
Moreover, defendants’ suggested interpretation of § 3604 is entirely inconsistent with
3

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 15 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 6
precedent from this Circuit. In Clifton Terrace Associates, Ltd. v. United Technologies Corp., the D.C. Circuit in dicta listed “mortgage financing” as an “essential service” within the coverage of § 3604(a). 929 F.2d 714, 719-20 (D.C. Cir. 1991). As explained by Judge Buckley, “the denial of certain essential services related to a dwelling, such as mortgage financing, . . . might result in the denial of housing.” Id. Here, plaintiffs have persuasively argued that a policy of refusing to lend to whole categories of would-be borrowers makes housing “unavailable” to those borrowers and “den[ies]” them dwellings. (Pl.’s Opp’n 11.) In other instances when this Court has considered the reach of § 3604, this Court has consistently held that § 3604 extends beyond mere refusal to sell or rent. Most recently in Hargraves v. Captial City Mortgage Corp., this Court ruled that predatory lending practices violate §§ 3604(a) and (b) because those practices make housing unavailable by putting borrowers at risk of losing their property. 140 F. Supp. 2d 7, 20 (D.D.C. 2000) (Green, J.); see also Nat’l Fair Housing Alliance, 208 F. Supp. 2d at 57 (finding that § 3604 applies to insurance redlining); Wai v. Allstate Ins. Co., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 1999) (Kennedy, J.) (same); Jones v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 983 F. Supp. 197, 202 (D.D.C. 1997) (Friedman, J.) (acknowledging that § 3604 applies to “actor[s] directly involved in providing housing or providing services, like homeowner’s insurance or financing, that are directly connected to helping people acquire housing”) (emphasis added).
Other courts that have considered the issue have expressly held that § 3604 applies to mortgage lending. See Laufman v. Oakley Bldg. & Loan Co., 408 F. Supp. 489 (S.D. Ohio 1976) (holding that the discriminatory refusal to make loans violates § 3604(a)); Beard v. Worldwide Mortgage Corp., 354 F. Supp. 2d 789, 808-09 (W.D. Tenn. 2005) (construing the language in § 3604(b) to encompass home improvement loans and refinancing loans because the burden of
4

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 15 Filed 03/31/08 Page 5 of 6
the debt affects the ability to buy or sell a dwelling); but see Webster Bank v. Oakley, 830 A.2d 139 (Conn. 2003) (finding that the application of § 3604 to discriminatory financing is precluded by the existence of § 3605).
In the insurance coverage context, this Court has recognized that since mortgage companies will not lend to borrowers who lack homeowner’s insurance, the denial of insurance renders housing unavailable. See Wai, 75 F. Supp. 2d at 6 (citing United States v. Massachusetts Indus. Fin. Agency, 910 F. Supp. 21, 27 (D. Mass. 1996) (“Few if any, banks make home loans to uninsured borrowers. Thus, property insurers in effect have the power to make housing unavailable to potential buyers.”); McDiarmid v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 604 F. Supp. 105, 107 (S.D. Ohio 1984) (“It is elementary that without insurance, mortgage financing will be unavailable, because a mortgage lender simply will not lend money on the property.”)); but see Mackey v. Nationwide Ins. Cos., 724 F.2d 419 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding that the discriminatory denial of insurance is not prohibited by § 3604(a)). Certainly, if the refusal to provide insurance coverage violates § 3604 because of the consequential inability to secure a loan, then a mortgage lender’s refusal to issue loans based on discriminatory purposes clearly violates the same provision.
III. CONCLUSION & ORDER Given the broad purpose of the FHA, the broad language of the statute, and the precedent in the Circuit, this Court finds that 42 U.S.C. § 3604 applies to discrimination in the availability of mortgage financing. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims brought under § 3604 will therefore be denied. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
5

Case 1:07-cv-00861-RCL Document 15 Filed 03/31/08 Page 6 of 6 ORDERED that defendant’s Motion [3] to Dismiss plaintiff’s claims under § 3604 be and is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge, March 31, 2008
6

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-861 As of: 05/31/2013 02:59 PM EDT 1 of 9
CLOSED,JURY,TYPE−L
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−00861−RCL

NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION v. NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC. et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/09/2007 Date Terminated: 12/02/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question

NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION

represented by Bradley Howard Blower Relman, Dane &Colfax, PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 728−1888 Fax: (202) 326−0848 Email: bblower@relmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elena G. Babinecz K &L GATES LLP Four Embarcadero Center Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 (202) 728−1888 Email: elena.babinecz@klgates.com TERMINATED: 01/18/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Glenn Schlactus RELMAN, DANE &COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 728−1888 Fax: 202) 728−0848 Email: gschlactus@relmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Peter Relman RELMAN, DANE &COLFAX, PLLC 1225 19th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036−2456 (202) 728−1888 Fax: (202) 728−0848 Email: jrelman@relmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Megan Cacace RELMAN, DANE &COLFAX, PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 728−1888

Case: 1:07-cv-861 As of: 05/31/2013 02:59 PM EDT 2 of 9
Email: mcacace@relmanlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC.
Defendant NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC.
Defendant W. LANCE ANDERSON

represented by David M. Souders WEINER BRODSKY KIDER PC 1300 19th Street, NW 5th Floor Washington, DC 20036−1648 (202) 628−2000 Fax: (202)628−2011 Email: souders@thewbkfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY
Brian Patrick Perryman JORDEN BURT LLP 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20007 (202) 965−8100 Fax: (202) 965−8104 Email: bpp@jordenusa.com TERMINATED: 03/03/2008
represented by David M. Souders (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Patrick Perryman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2008
represented by David M. Souders (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/09/2007
05/09/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616004121) filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − B# 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(tg, ) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
Summons (2) Issued as to NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
2 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION to Dismiss by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Souders, David) Modified on 5/31/2007 (tg, ). (Entered: 05/30/2007)
3 MOTION to Dismiss by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Souders, David) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
4 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Souders, David) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-861 As of: 05/31/2013 02:59 PM EDT 3 of 9

05/31/2007 06/12/2007 06/12/2007 06/13/2007
06/22/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/06/2007 01/17/2008
01/18/2008 02/20/2008 03/03/2008 03/31/2008 04/28/2008
04/28/2008 05/01/2008

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 2 MOTION to Dismiss was entered in error at the request of counsel. Counsel refiled said pleading under docket entry number 3 . (tg, ) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC. served on 5/11/2007, answer due 5/31/2007 (Relman, John) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
6 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. served on 5/10/2007, answer due 5/30/2007 (Relman, John) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
7 Memorandum in opposition to re 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A# 2 Attachment B# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Relman, John) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
8 REPLY to opposition to motion re 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC.. (Souders, David) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Glenn Schlactus on behalf of NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Schlactus, Glenn) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Bradley Howard Blower on behalf of NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Elena Grigera on behalf of NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Grigera, Elena) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
12 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney of Elena Grigera as counsel for Plaintiff National Community Reinvestment Coalition by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grigera, Elena) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
13 ORDER granting 12 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney.. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 01/18/2008. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
14 MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Perryman, Brian) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 14 Motion to Withdraw. It is ORDERED that Brian P. perryman be withdrawn as counsel of record for defendants. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 03/03/2008. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
15 MEMORANDUM &ORDER denying 3 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 03/31/2008. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
16 MOTION for Entry of Default by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Bradley H. Blower in Support of Motion for Entry of Default, # 2 Exhibit Attachment A − Novastar Mortgage Return of Service, # 3 Exhibit Attachment B − Novastar Financial Return of Service, # 4 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Souders, David) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
18 Memorandum in opposition to re 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer and Reply Brief in Support of re 16 Motion for Entry of Default filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A − Novastar Financial 10−K Filing)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 05/01/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-861 As of: 05/31/2013 02:59 PM EDT 4 of 9

05/01/2008 05/01/2008
06/04/2008 06/11/2008 06/19/2008 06/23/2008 06/24/2008
08/25/2008
08/27/2008 08/27/2008 09/08/2008
09/12/2008
09/15/2008
09/16/2008 09/26/2008
10/07/2008 10/08/2008

19 ORDER denying 16 Motion for Entry of Default; granting 17 Motion to File Answer Out of Time. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 05/01/2008. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
20 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. Related document: 1 Complaint filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION.(tg, ) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
21 ORDER requiring parties to meet and confer and jointly submit a written report and proposed scheduling order. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 06/04/2008. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Meet &Confer Report with Proposed Scheduling Order due by 7/3/2008. (rje) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
22 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
23 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 06/23/2008. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Pleadings or Joining Other Parties due by 8/27/2008. Proponent's Rule 26a2 due by 10/24/2008. Opponent's Rule 26a2 due by 11/14/2008. Discovery due by 12/12/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 1/16/2009. Response to Dispositive Motions due by 2/16/2009. Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 2/27/2009. (rje) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
24 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulated Protective Order Governing the Designation and Use of Confidential Personal Identifying Information)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
25 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Governing Confidential Information. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 8/27/08. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate Regarding Stipulated Protective Order) (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
26 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
27 Memorandum in opposition to re 26 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Souders, David) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
28 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Relman, John) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
29 ORDER granting 28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 28 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend. Reply due by 9/26/2008. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 9/15/08. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Reply due by 9/26/2008. (rje, ) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
30 REPLY to opposition to motion re 26 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Relman, John) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
31 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE and Suggestion of Bankruptcy by NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Souders, David) Modified on 10/8/2008 (tg, ). (Entered: 10/07/2008)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 31 Notice (Other) was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading using the proper ECF

Case: 1:07-cv-861 As of: 05/31/2013 02:59 PM EDT 5 of 9

10/08/2008 10/08/2008 10/14/2008 10/15/2008 10/24/2008
10/30/2008 11/13/2008 11/14/2008 11/17/2008
11/18/2008 11/18/2008
11/18/2008 11/18/2008 11/18/2008 11/21/2008

event to docket a Suggestion of Bankruptcy. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
32 SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY Upon the Record by NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC.. (Souders, David) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
33 STIPULATION to Modify Scheduling Order by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION, NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC.. (Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
34 MOTION for Leave to File A Surreply Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend its Complaint to Join W. Lance Anderson as a Defendant by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Souders, David) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
35 NOTICE of Clarification to Rule 7(m) Statement by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
36 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend its Complaint to Join W. Lance Anderson as a Defendant by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Relman, John) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
37 Joint MOTION for Order to Modify Scheduling Order by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
38 MOTION to Compel Appearance of Rule 30(b)(6) Designee in Washington D.C. by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/21/2008 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 22A before Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth. (rje) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
39 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MEMORANDUM by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11)(Blower, Bradley) Modified on 11/18/2008 (tg, ). (Entered: 11/17/2008)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 39 Memorandum, was entered in error. The motion was not filed. Counsel was instructed to refile said pleading including the motion. (tg, ) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
40 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
41 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by Bradley Howard Blower on behalf of NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Blower, Bradley) Modified on 11/18/2008 (tg, ). (Entered: 11/18/2008)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 41 Notice of Appearance was entered in error and counsel entering her appearance was instructed to refile said pleading using her own ECF login and password. (tg, ) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
42 NOTICE of Appearance by Megan Moran−Gates on behalf of NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Moran−Gates, Megan) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth: Status Conference held on 11/21/2008. (Court Reporter Susan Tyner.) (rje) (Entered: 11/21/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-861 As of: 05/31/2013 02:59 PM EDT 6 of 9

11/24/2008
11/26/2008 12/02/2008
12/04/2008 12/12/2008 12/18/2008 03/09/2009
03/11/2009 03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/18/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009

43 Memorandum in opposition to re 38 MOTION to Compel Appearance of Rule 30(b)(6) Designee in Washington D.C. MOTION to Compel Appearance of Rule 30(b)(6) Designee in Washington D.C. filed by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Souders, David) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
44 Consent MOTION for Modification of Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC. (Souders, David) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
45 REPLY to opposition to motion re 38 MOTION to Compel Appearance of Rule 30(b)(6) Designee in Washington D.C. MOTION to Compel Appearance of Rule 30(b)(6) Designee in Washington D.C. filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
46 Memorandum in opposition to re 40 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration W. Lance Anderson, # 2 Declaration David M. Souders (1), # 3 Declaration David M. Souders (2))(Souders, David) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
47 REPLY to opposition to motion re 40 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
48 Joint MOTION for Order to Modify Scheduling Order by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
49 NOTICE of Supplemental Evidence in Support of Its 26 Motion for Leave to Amend Its Complaint to Join W. Lance Anderson as a Defendant by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Blower, Bradley) Modified to add linkage on 3/10/2009 (tg, ). (Entered: 03/09/2009)
50 NOTICE of Dismissal of Involuntary Bankruptcy Petition by NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Attachments: # 1 Order)(Souders, David) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
51 RESPONSE re 49 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) of Supplemental Evidence in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend its Complaint to Join W. Lance Anderson as a Defendant filed by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC.. (Souders, David) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
52 Joint MOTION for Order to Modify Scheduling Order by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
53 REPLY re 51 Response to Document, Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Evidence in Support of its Motion for Leave to Amend its Complaint to Join W. Lance Anderson as a Defendant filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 34 Motion for Leave to File. Exhibit A to Motion 34 (proposed surreply) shall be deemed filed. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 3/27/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 36 Motion for Leave to File. Exhibit A to Motion 36 (proposed supplemental memorandum) shall be deemed filed. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 3/27/09. (lcrcl2, ) Modified on 3/30/2009 (zrje, ). (Entered: 03/27/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, 44 Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion 40 . Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 3/27/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
54 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 3/27/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)

Case: 1:07-cv-861 As of: 05/31/2013 02:59 PM EDT 7 of 9

03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009
03/27/2009 04/10/2009 04/10/2009 04/13/2009 04/16/2009 04/27/2009 05/08/2009 05/15/2009

55 ORDER granting 38 Motion to Compel (with costs borne by plaintiff); denying without prejudice 40 Motion to Compel; granting 26 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 3/27/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 52 Motion for Scheduling Order and adopting the parties' proposed schedule. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 3/27/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 37 Motion for Order (Motion 52 having already been granted). Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 3/27/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 48 Motion for Order (Motion 52 having already been granted). Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 3/27/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
56 SURREPLY to re 26 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC.. (rdj) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
57 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 26 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (rdj) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff Rule 26a2 due by 3/20/2009. Defendant Rule 26a2 due by 4/14/2009. Deadlines for Depositions of Expert Witnesses due 7/10/2009. Discovery due by 7/10/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 8/14/2009. Response to Dispositive Motions due by 9/11/2009. Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 10/2/2009. (rje) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
58 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against W. LANCE ANDERSON, NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION.(nmw, ) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
59 ANSWER to 58 Amended Complaint by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC.. Related document: 58 Amended Complaint filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION.(Souders, David) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Reports by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Souders, David) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
61 Memorandum in opposition to re 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Reports filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
62 REPLY to opposition to motion re 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Reports filed by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC.. (Souders, David) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
63 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to 12(b)(2) by W. LANCE ANDERSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Souders, David) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
64 Memorandum in opposition to re 63 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to 12(b)(2) filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
65 REPLY to opposition to motion re 63 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to 12(b)(2) MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to 12(b)(2) filed by W. LANCE ANDERSON. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Defendant W. Lance Anderson's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of David M. Souders)(Souders, David) (Entered:

Case: 1:07-cv-861 As of: 05/31/2013 02:59 PM EDT 8 of 9

05/20/2009 05/21/2009 05/27/2009
05/28/2009 06/09/2009 06/16/2009

05/15/2009)
66 NOTICE of Supplemental Evidence in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant W. Lance Anderson's Motion to Dismiss by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION re 63 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to 12(b)(2) MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to 12(b)(2) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
67 NOTICE of Proposed Order in Support of Opposition by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION re 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Reports (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
68 MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of David M. Souders In Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit Exh. A to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit Exh. B to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 4 Exhibit Exh. C to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 5 Exhibit Exh. D to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 6 Exhibit Exh. E to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 7 Exhibit Exh. F to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 8 Exhibit Exh. G to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 9 Exhibit Exh. H to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 10 Exhibit Exh. I to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 11 Exhibit Exh. J to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 12 Exhibit Exh. K to Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 13 Text of Proposed Order)(Souders, David) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
69 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 60 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 5/28/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
70 Memorandum in opposition to re 68 MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Bradley H. Blower in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel, # 2 Exhibit A to Bradley H. Blower Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Bradley H. Blower Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to Bradley H. Blower Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D to Bradley H. Blower Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E to Bradley H. Blower Declaration, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
71 REPLY to opposition to motion re 68 MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories filed by NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David M. Souders in Support of Defendants NovaStar Financial, Inc. and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit L to Declaration, # 3 Exhibit M to Declaration, # 4 Exhibit N to Declaration)(Souders,

Case: 1:07-cv-861 As of: 05/31/2013 02:59 PM EDT 9 of 9

06/22/2009 07/06/2009 07/08/2009
07/13/2009 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 07/23/2009 07/27/2009 09/09/2009
09/14/2009
09/16/2009 10/14/2009
10/19/2009
10/19/2009 12/01/2009

David) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
72 ORDER denying 63 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 6/22/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
73 ANSWER to 58 Amended Complaint by W. LANCE ANDERSON. Related document: 58 Amended Complaint filed by NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION.(Souders, David) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
74 Joint MOTION to Stay the Case for Mediation and to Modify the Scheduling Order by W. LANCE ANDERSON, NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION, NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
75 ORDER granting 68 Motion to Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 7/13/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
76 ORDER granting 74 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 7/13/09. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 10/14/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 11/6/2009. Oppositions to Dispositive Motions due by 12/4/2009. Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 12/18/2009. (rje) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for Wednesday, 9/9/2009 @ 02:30 PM in Room−2315−2nd Floor, E. Barrett Prettyman Building before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (EW) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
77 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson for settlement discussions. (jeb, ) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson: Settlement Conference held on 9/9/2009, ( Settlement Conference set for Monday, 9/14/2009 @ 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson.). (EW) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson: Telephone Conference held on 9/14/2009, ( Telephone Conference set for Wednesday, 9/16/2009 @ 05:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson.). (EW) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson: Telephone Conference held on 9/16/2009. (EW) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
78 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by W. LANCE ANDERSON, NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION, NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
79 ORDER granting the parties' Joint Motion 78 for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 11/13/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 1/8/2010. Response to Dispositive Motions due by 2/5/2010. Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 2/19/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 10/19/2009. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 11/13/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 1/8/2010. Oppositions to Dispositive Motions due by 2/5/2010. Replies to Dispositive Motions due by 2/19/2010. (rje) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
80 STIPULATION of Dismissal by W. LANCE ANDERSON, NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION, NOVASTAR FINANCIAL INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE INC.. (Blower, Bradley) (Entered: 12/01/2009)