Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00630/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00630-3/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. 

 Regarding the Robinson case, in the motion at Doc. 1923, pages 4-6, Defendant 

U.S. Bank makes the following argument: 

 The Court should enter summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank, as 

Trustee for SASCO Series 2006-GEL3, because the undisputed evidence of 

record establishes that it had no involvement in the foreclosure action or the 

documents the Robinsons attached to the CAC. U.S. Bank, as Trustee for 

SASCO Series 2006-GEL3, merely held the Robinsons’ loan as trustee. 

SOF ¶¶ 5-6. U.S. Bank, as Trustee for SASCO Series 2006- GEL3, had no 

involvement in the foreclosure process: it did not service the loan or initiate 

the foreclosure proceedings, it did not execute or cause the recording of the 

documents at issue, it did not communicate with the foreclosure trustee 

about the documents or the foreclosure, and it never saw the challenged 

documents before they were recorded. See id. ¶¶ 6-7. 

 Defendant U.S. Bank (as Trustee) makes no argument about who did undertake 

the foreclosure of the Robinsons’ house. Arizona agency law is as follows: 

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 96 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 3
-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

 Arizona courts generally follow the Restatement of Agency. Fidelity 

& Deposit Co. of Md. v. Bondwriter of Sw., Inc., 228 Ariz. 84, 263 P.3d 

633, 639 (Ariz. Ct. App.2011). The Restatement defines “agency” as “a 

consensual and fiduciary relationship” that “creates a [fiduciary] duty upon 

the agent to act in good faith and according to the terms of the agency 

agreement.” Maricopa P'ships, Inc. v. Petyak, 163 Ariz. 624, 790 P.2d 279, 

281 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989); see Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006) 

(“Agency is the fiduciary relationship that arises when one person (a 

‘principal’) manifests assent to another person (an ‘agent’) that the agent 

shall act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control, and 

the agent manifests assent or otherwise consents so to act.”). 

KnightBrook Ins. Co. v. Payless Car Rental Sys., Inc., 43 F. Supp. 3d 965, 978 (D. Ariz. 

2014). 

 A principal is subject to liability to a third party harmed by an 

agent’s conduct when the agent’s conduct is within the scope of the agent’s 

actual authority or ratified by the principal; and 

 (1) the agent’s conduct is tortious, or 

 (2) the agent’s conduct, if that of the principal, would subject the principal 

to tort liability. 

Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 7.04 (2006). 

 This Court and other courts have held that MERS and the MERS system do not 

per se violate Arizona law. See e.g. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 

F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Further, the notes and deeds are not irreparably split: 

the split only renders the mortgage unenforceable if MERS or the trustee, as nominal 

holders of the deeds, are not agents of the lenders. See Landmark Nat'l Bank, 216 P.3d at 

167.”). 

 Thus, while Courts have held that MERS (or a servicer) is permitted to be the 

agent of the lender, in any particular case, the lender could disavow that any such 

relationship exists and that MERS (and/or the servicer) is a rogue actor. In this case, that 

appears to be the only logical conclusion to U.S. Bank’s argument. 

 In other words, U.S. Bank argues that IT took no action. By implication, U.S. 

Bank must also be arguing that it is not the principal of any agent (acting within its 

authority) who took such action, otherwise, as principal, U.S. Bank would still be liable. 

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 96 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 3
-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 However, U.S. Bank never affirmatively, factually, disavows that MERS or the 

servicer are agents of U.S. Bank (U.S. Bank admits the Trust for which it is Trustee holds 

the Robinsons’ loan and is seeking repayment of said loan through the collection of this 

collateral). Further, later in their motion for summary judgment at footnote 9 (page 10) 

and page 14-16; U.S. Bank discusses MERS as if it is an agent or nominee of U.S. Bank. 

 These positions represent such material factual inconsistencies, the Court cannot 

determine whether U.S. Bank is arguing this it IS the principal of its agent (MERS and 

the loan servicer), but that those agents did nothing wrong; or if U.S. Bank is factually 

disavowing any agency relationship; thus, U.S. Bank could potentially escape liability if 

it personally took no action with respect to the Robinsons’ loan. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that U.S. Bank (as Trustee of the Trust which holds the 

Robinsons’ loan) and Wells Fargo (whose exact relationship to this transaction has yet to 

be identified by either party, but who joined U.S. Bank’s motion) shall file a 

supplemental brief on the issues discussed above not to exceed five pages by April 25, 

2016. Plaintiffs and/or the MERS defendants may each respond, in a brief not to exceed 

five pages by April 29, 2016.1

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

 Both MERS and U.S. Bank also make an argument that each of them is not the person 

or entity who physically recorded that document. Each of them should also address 

whether, under Arizona law, a person who records a document for them, at their direction 

is their agent. 

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 96 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 3