Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02119/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02119-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

WO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS) 

LITIGATION 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

Robinson v. GE Money Bank et al., 

CV 10-00630-PHX-JAT 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

MDL 09-02119-PHX-JAT

CV 10-630-PHX-JAT 

ORDER Re SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING 

)

The Court will order supplemental briefing as specified below. Each brief may 

not exceed FIVE (5) pages. This five pages includes the caption and the signature and is 

inclusive of exhibits. 

 There are four ways to violate A.R.S. § 33-420(A); specifically, if a document 

recorded in the chain of title is: 

 1) forged; 

 2) groundless; 

 3) contains a material misstatement or false claim; or 

 4) is otherwise invalid. 

 In its mandate reversing this Court’s dismissal of the consolidated amended 

complaint, the Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs had stated a claim that “the 

documents at issue are invalid because they are ‘robosigned (forged).’” In re Mortgage 

Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 783 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). 

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 2056 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 2
-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 Plaintiffs make the following argument in response to the summary judgment 

motions: 

 Defendants’ attempt to characterize Plaintiff’s criticism of the 

assignment as a claim that MERS has no interest in the note is misplaced. 

The false statement is related to the transfer of the note itself together with 

an interest in all monies to become due under the note. This is not the same 

as saying that MERS was transferring an interest in the note itself. 

Doc. 2011 at 6. 

 The Court has tried to decipher what Plaintiffs are arguing by this sentence and 

how this relates to any allegation of forgery,1

 but the Court has been unsuccessful. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Robinson and Silvas Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental 

brief on the issues discussed above not to exceed five pages by April 25, 2016. Any 

Defendant may each respond, in a brief not to exceed five pages, by April 29, 2016. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court must file a copy of this 

Order in both the MDL case number and the one member case listed above. 

 Dated this 20th day of April, 2016. 

 

1

 To the extent by “false statement”, which is not listed as a way to violate A.R.S. § 33-

420, Plaintiffs are arguing a theory other than “forgery” and assuming (for purposes of 

this Order only) that such an argument would not be beyond the scope of the mandate, 

Plaintiffs must prove materiality. Specifically, Plaintiffs mischaracterize this Court’s 

prior order by stating that the Court held that Plaintiffs “do not need to prove materiality 

related to the documents.” (Doc. 2011 at 9). This Court did not hold this, and indeed 

could not, as the statute itself expressly requires that if the theory under which a plaintiff 

is proceeding is a “misstatement” such misstatement must be “material”. A.R.S. § 33-

420. In other words, all this Court held was that if a plaintiff is proceeding on a theory 

that a document is “forged”, the plaintiff does not have to prove materiality. (See Doc. 

1912 at 4). 

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 2056 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 2