Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00528/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00528-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A., et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0528-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion

for Sanctions and Award of Attorneys’ Fees against Plaintiff AOM Group, LLC ("AOM

Group"). (Doc. 42). The motion for attorneys' fees was filed on October 25, 2010 and as of

this date, Plaintiff has not filed a responsive memorandum. After reviewing the motion, the

memorandum in support of the motion (doc. 42) and the pertinent case law, the Court enters

the following order.

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

Group purports to be the trustee of a trust for homeowners in foreclosure. Plaintiff’s

complaint asserted (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;

Case 2:10-cv-00528-MHM Document 45 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

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

Group, who purport 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-cv00088-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-cv-

- 2 -

and (11) violation of the Uniform Commercial Code, ARS 47-3100 Et. Seq., and Arizona’s

Recording Statute. Plaintiffs also sought a Declaratory Judgment declaring the Arizona Deed

of Trust Statute to be unconstitutional. (Doc. 12). On August 25, 2010 the Court granted

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) and Defendant Michael

A. Bosco Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) based on Plaintiff’s lack of standing. (Doc. 36).

Judgment against the Plaintiff was ordered that same day. (Doc. 37). 

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a Motion for Sanctions and Award of

Attorneys’ Fees on September 8, 2010 and memorandum in support of the Motion on

October 25, 2010. (Docs. 38, 42). The motion argues that attorneys’ fees should be granted

because Plaintiff’s claims arose out of contract (See Pls. First Amended Compl. (Doc. 12))

and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 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.”). Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A. is also seeking reimbursement of its attorneys’ fees as a sanction against Plaintiff

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Plaintiff says sanction is justified by the 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 explains why it is entitled to fees pursuant to the factors

Case 2:10-cv-00528-MHM Document 45 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

00208-GMS, the Motion for Sanctions was denied, but Judge Snow expressly stated that the

Defendant would be able to seek attorneys’ fees.

- 3 -

enumerated in LRCiv.P. 54.2. Since Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees was filed,

Plaintiff has not filed a response.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. seeks an award of attorneys’s fees in the amount

of $27,916.50. The amount represents attorney and paralegal time, and is supported by an

affidavit and billing statements specifying hours worked, tasks performed and rates charged

as required pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2) and LRCiv.P. 54.2. (doc. 42, Ex. C) The

Court finds these fees reasonable.

Under LRCiv P. 7.2(I), however, “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. 38, 44)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Wells Fargo, N.A. $27,916.50 in attorneys’

fees and related non-taxable expenses. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00528-MHM Document 45 Filed 03/31/11 Page 3 of 3