Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01404-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARTHEL DENNIS BORING, 

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a 

limited liability company,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 

OF LAW ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 

ALLEGED UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL 

CODE SECTIONS 2923.6 AND 2923.7 

A jury trial was held in this action on December 1, 

2015, through December 4, 2015, on Plaintiff’s breach of the 

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim; the jury 

was advisory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(1) on 

Plaintiff’s equitable claims alleged under the California Civil 

Code section 2923.6 (dual tracking) and California Civil Code 

section 2923.7 (single point of contact) (collectively referred 

to as “equitable claims”). The jury returned a general verdict in 

Defendant’s favor on Plaintiff’s implied covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing claim and answered written questions concerning 

Plaintiff’s equitable claims. 

The following findings of fact and conclusions of law 

issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 on Plaintiff’s 

equitable claims after considering the stipulated facts, 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 123 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 5
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

2

testimony, and documentary evidence presented at trial, and the 

jury’s advisory answers to written questions. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

The undisputed facts stated in section 3 of the 

parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement, (ECF No. 92), are facts the 

parties agreed during trial are undisputed and are incorporated 

herein.

Further, the jury gave the following advisory responses 

to the below questions, which are applicable to decision on 

Plaintiff’s equitable claims; however, no deference is given to 

the advisory responses:

Question No. 3: Did Plaintiff submit a complete 

loan modification application to Defendant before June 24, 2013?

Answer: YES X NO 

Question No. 6: After January 1, 2013, and before 

June 24, 2013, did Defendant provide Plaintiff with a single 

point of contact responsible for communicating the process by 

which Plaintiff could apply for a foreclosure prevention 

alternative and the deadline for any required submissions to be 

considered for these options?

Answer: X_ YES NO

Question No. 7: After January 1, 2013, and before 

June 24, 2013, did Defendant provide Plaintiff with a single 

point of contact responsible for coordinating receipt of all 

documents associated with a loan modification application and 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 123 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 5
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

3

notifying Plaintiff of any missing documents necessary to 

complete the application?

Answer: X YES NO

Question No. 8: After January 1, 2013, and before 

June 24, 2013, did Defendant provide Plaintiff with a single 

point of contact responsible for having access to current 

information and personnel sufficient to timely, accurately, and 

adequately inform Plaintiff of the status of his loan 

modification application?

Answer: X YES NO

Question No. 9: After January 1, 2013, and before 

June 24, 2013, did Defendant provide Plaintiff with a single 

point of contact responsible for ensuring that Plaintiff was 

considered for a loan modification?

Answer: X YES NO

Question No. 10: After June 24, 2013, did Defendant

make a written determination on Plaintiff’s loan modification 

application?

Answer: X YES NO

(See General Verdict with Answers to Written Questions, ECF No. 

120-1.)

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

ultimate decision on liability concerning claims for which an 

advisory jury is empaneled is made by the judge with explicit 

findings of fact. I agree with the credibility determinations 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 123 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

evidenced by the jury’s advisory answers to written questions, 

and adopt the advisory jury’s answers to the above questions as 

my factual findings as follows:

Plaintiff did not submit a complete loan modification 

application to Nationstar before June 24, 2013. 

After January 1, 2013 and before June 24, 2013, 

Nationstar provided Plaintiff with a single point of contact 

responsible for: communicating the process by which Plaintiff 

could apply for a foreclosure prevention alternative and the 

deadline for any required submissions to be considered for these 

options; coordinating receipt of all documents associated with a 

loan modification application and notifying Plaintiff of any 

missing documents necessary to complete the application; having 

access to current information and personnel sufficient to timely, 

accurately, and adequately inform Plaintiff of the current status 

of his loan modification application; and ensuring that Plaintiff 

was considered for all foreclosure prevention alternatives 

offered by Nationstar, if any.

Nationstar made a written determination on Plaintiff’s 

loan modification application on January 22, 2014.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Nationstar did not violate California Civil Code 

section 2923.6(c).

Nationstar did not violate California Civil Code 

section 2923.7.

Pursuant to California Civil Code section 2924.12(c), 

Nationstar’s review of Plaintiff’s loan modification application 

and the resulting denial on January 22, 2014, corrected and 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 123 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

remedied any alleged violation of California Civil Code sections 

2923.6 or 2923.7.

JUDGMENT

In light of the jury’s general verdict and the above 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, judgment shall be 

entered in Defendant’s favor on Plaintiff’s implied covenant of 

good faith and fair dealing claim in accordance with the general 

verdict filed on December 4, 2015, and shall be entered in 

Defendant’s favor on Plaintiff’s equitable claims in accordance 

with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this order.

Dated: December 21, 2015

 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 123 Filed 12/21/15 Page 5 of 5