Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00527/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00527-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AOM Group, LLC

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Irwin Mortgage Corporation, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-527-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant U.S. Bank National

Association’s ("U.S. Bank") Motion for Sanctions and Award of Attorneys’ Fees against

AOM Group, LLC ("AOM Group"), (doc. 40) filed on September 9, 2010. As of this date,

no responsive memorandum has been filed by Plaintiff. After reviewing the motion, the

memorandum in support of the motion (doc. 41), and the pertinent case law, the Court enters

the following order.

On March 11, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants.

Plaintiff is the trustee of a of a trust purporting to represent the interests of homeowners in

foreclosure. Plaintiff's complaint asserts (1) wrongful foreclosure; (2) quiet title; (3)

fraudulent misrepresentation; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) civil

conspiracy to commit fraud; (7) fraud; (8) breach of contract; (9) violation of the Arizona

Consumer Fraud Act; (10) violation of Arizona Assignment and Satisfaction of Mortgage

Law and invalid deed of trust; and (11) violation of the Uniform Commercial Code, ARS

Case 2:10-cv-00527-MHM Document 44 Filed 03/31/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Indeed, the Court notes that this case is but one in a series of lawsuits filed by the

AOM Group, which purports to act as trustee for a series of trusts formed by individuals who

have defaulted on home loans secured by Promissory Note and Deed of Trust. See AOM

Group, LLC v. Mortgagit, Inc., 2:09-cv-02639-SRB; AOM Group, LLC, v. Loanacity, 2:10-

cv-00088-GMS; AOM Group, LLC. v. Coastal Capital Corp., 2:10-cv-00094-SRB; AOM

Group, LLC v. DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd., 2:10-cv-00208-GMS; AOM Group, LLC v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2:10-cv-00514-GMS; AOM Group, LLC, v. Irwin Mortgage

Corp., 2:10-cv-00605-MHM; AOM Group, LLC v. Downey Savings and Loan Association,

F.A., 2:10-cv-00830-MHM; AOM Group, LLC v. Fidelity Mortgage Financial, 2:10-cv00972-DGC; AOM Group, LLC v. DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd., 2:10-cv-01043-JAT.

Most of the AOM Group’s cases were filed between the months of January and March 2010,

and seven out of the nine lawsuits assigned to other Judges in this District have been

dismissed. In AOM Group, LLC v. Mortgagit, Inc., 2:09-cv-02639-SRB attorneys’ fees and

sanctions were awarded. In AOM Group, LLC v. DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd., 2:10-cv00208-GMS, the Motion for Sanctions was denied, but Judge Snow expressly stated that the

- 2 -

47-3100 et. seq., and Arizona’s Recording Statute. Plaintiff also sought a Declaratory

Judgment declaring the Arizona Deed of Trust Statute to be unconstitutional. (Doc. 12). 

On August 25, 2010 the Court granted motions to dismiss by Defendants Michael

A. Bosco Jr. (Doc. 16), Irwin Mortgage Corporation (Doc. 21), and U.S. Bank (Doc. 25)

based on Plaintiff’s lack of standing. (Doc. 38) The Court entered judgment against the

Plaintiff the same day. (Doc. 39). 

Defendant U.S. Bank filed the current motion for sanctions and award of

attorneys’ fees on September 9, 2010. (Doc. 40). The motion and supporting memorandum

argue that attorneys’ fees should be granted because Plaintiff’s claims arose out of contract

(See Pls. First Amended Compl. (Doc. 12)) and U.S. Bank is therefore eligible for an award

reimbursing its attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 341.01(A) (“In any contested action

arising out of contract, express or implied, the court may award the successful party

reasonable attorneys fees.”). U.S. Bank is also seeking reimbursement of its attorneys’ fees

as a sanction against Plaintiff pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Defendant argue that sanctions

are justified due to Plaintiff's bad-faith prosecution of this lawsuit. Plaintiff has filed a

number of similar claims, most of which were dismissed based on lack of standing, and in

some of which attorneys’ fees and/or sanctions were awarded.1

 Defendant also outlines why

Case 2:10-cv-00527-MHM Document 44 Filed 03/31/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Defendant would be able to seek attorneys’ fees. 

- 3 -

it is entitled to fees under the factors provided by Rule 54.2(b)(2).

Defendant U.S. Bank seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of

$12,340.50 for attorney and paralegal time, supported by an affidavit as well itemized billing

statements specifying hours worked and rates (Doc. 41), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2)

and LRCiv.P. 54. The fees appear reasonable to the Court. Since Defendant’s Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees was filed, Plaintiff has not filed a response.

Under LRCiv P. 7.2(i), “if the opposing party does not serve and file the required

answering memorandum, . . . such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or

granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” Pursuant to this

rule, the Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to serve and file the required answering

memorandum a consent to the granting of the Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and Award

of Attorneys’ Fees.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and

Award of Attorneys’ Fees. (Docs. 40, 43)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Defendant U.S. Bank N.A.

$11,300.00 in attorneys’ fees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00527-MHM Document 44 Filed 03/31/11 Page 3 of 3