Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00206/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00206-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

PAUL FORD and ANN FORD, for 

Themselves and all Arkansas 

Residents Similarly Situated 

v. No. 3:15-cv-206-DPM 

PLAINTIFFS 

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. DEFENDANT 

ORDER 

1. Joint status report, Ng 48-1, noted. Joint report on discovery disputes, 

Ng 44, also noted. Here are the Court's rulings. 

• CitiMortgage' s Initial Disclosures 

By 6 May 2016 CitiMortgage must identify by name specific individuals 

with knowledge- both its own folks and someone from Wilson & Associates. 

If former employees were involved, CitiMortgage must also provide the last 

known contact information. 

• Fords' Interrogatories No. 1 & 2 and Request for Production No. 1 

The parties have resolved this dispute. Ng 48-1. 

• Fords' Interrogatory No. 4 and Request for Production No. 2 

CitiMortgage' s production for Wilson & Associates was fine. The Court 

understands CitiMortgage' s concerns about customer privacy. But there is a 

Case 3:15-cv-00206-DPM Document 57 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 5
comprehensive protective order in place. Names of other borrowers do not 

seem essential at this point-they can be identified by number or letter. What 

the Fords need to know now, however, is whether a foreclosure action was 

filed against any of these 100 or so other borrowers and, if not, whether any 

unincurred foreclosure-related fees were refunded. To the extent 

CitiMortgage has not already answered these questions on a borrower-byborrower basis (but without names), it must do so by 6 May 2016. 

• Interrogatory No. 6 

It's clear as propounded. CitiMortgage must answer by 6 May 2016. 

• Fords' Motion to Extend Expert Deadlines 

This motion, NQ 52, is granted as modified. Because of discovery static, 

the Fords haven't had adequate time to evaluate whether to get an expert. 

The transaction history, NQ 52-2, is less than clear on its face; an expert may 

be helpful in explaining it. For these reasons, good cause exists to modify the 

Final Scheduling Order slightly. All the remaining pretrial deadlines are 

extended by approximately thirty days, as follows: Fords' expert materials 

due by 16 May 2016; CitiMortgage's expert materials due by 17 June 2016; 

any rebuttal expert materials due by 1 July 2016; discovery ends, and joint 

-2-

Case 3:15-cv-00206-DPM Document 57 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 5
status report due, on 5 August 2016; and all motions due by 2 September 

2016. The parties should block out now time in July for potential expert 

depositions. 

2. Some of the Fords' proposed changes in their complaint are fine; 

others are not. The clean-up amendments, which recast allegations in terms 

of the federal rules, are helpful. The preservation footnote on the rejected 

Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim is prudent. The Court declines, 

though, to allow the requested amendments that would expand the proposed 

class beyond Arkansawyers who dealt with Wilson & Associates as 

CitiMortgage' s agent. 

CitiMortgage' s standing attack is misplaced, as is most of its effort to 

litigate the Rule 23 question now. 

Leave to amend should be freely granted when justice requires it, FED. 

R. Crv. P. 15(a)(2), but prejudice to the defendant must be weighed. Julianello 

v. K-V Pharmaceutical Company, 791 F.3d 915, 922 (8th Cir. 2015). The Fords' 

proposed expansion of the class to a nationwide group would subject 

CitiMortgage to a big discovery burden. This case is almost two years old. 

Discovery hasn't been smooth-see the earlier parts of this Order. We're on 

-3-

Case 3:15-cv-00206-DPM Document 57 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 5
track for motions in the fall and trial next February. Expanding the proposed 

class to cover people in every other state, or even in those states that allow 

non-judicial foreclosures, would transform this case. The parties would have 

to start almost from scratch. Doing so would not promote the just, speedy, 

and inexpensive resolution of the parties' dispute. FED. R. C1v. P. 1. 

While it's not certain that the Fords' expansion of the class would be 

futile, the proposed supporting allegations are thin. There are no particulars 

alleged about CitiMortgage doing non-judicial foreclosure business in 

Arkansas through entities other than Wilson & Associates. There are no 

particulars alleged about CitiMortgage' s non-judicial foreclosure practices in 

other states. While similar business methods are possible, of course, the Fords 

haven't alleged enough facts to state plausible claims for a broader proposed 

class. Which brings things back to the burden on CitiMortgage: the Fords' 

proposed new complaint is just not adequate to justify the scope of discovery 

this new pleading would prompt if allowed. CitiMortgage is right on one 

futility point: the law of unjust enrichment and conversion varies across the 

several states. Twenty-something subclasses to deal with those variations 

would just be twenty-something lawsuits, albeit in one place. In re St. Jude 

-4-

Case 3:15-cv-00206-DPM Document 57 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 5
Medical, Inc., 425F.3d1116, 1120 (8th Cir. 2005); Tylerv. Alltel Corporation, 265 

F.R.D. 415, 422-23 (E.D. Ark. 2010). In the circumstances, some clean up is 

needed, but the vast expansion of this case is not. 

* * * 

Joint report on discovery disputes, NQ 44, addressed. Motion to extend, 

NQ 52, granted as modified. Motion to amend, NQ 47, granted in part and 

denied in part. Conforming amended complaint due by 6 May 2016. The 

sooner the better. 

So Ordered. 

D.P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-5-

Case 3:15-cv-00206-DPM Document 57 Filed 04/19/16 Page 5 of 5