Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00630/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00630-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

1

 The parties have fully briefed this issue pursuant to the Court’s Order on Practices

and Procedures. (Doc. #25.)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems (MERS) Litigation

)

)

)

)

MDL DOCKET NO. 09-2119-JAT

ORDER

In the transfer order establishing this consolidated multidistrict litigation (“MDL”),

the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”) stated, “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that claims unrelated to the formation and/or operation of the MERS system are

simultaneously remanded to their respective transferor courts.” (Doc. #1.) The parties

contest which claims in each of the various cases relate to the formation and/or operation of

MERS.1

 This Order addresses the following cases (transferred by Doc. #1, Schedule A):

First Plaintiff’s Name Arizona Case Number Original Jurisdiction Case Number

Robinson CV 09-227-TUC-JAT 4:09-227 (Arizona)

Vargas CV 09-2616-PHX-JAT 2:09-2309 (C. D. California)

Lopez CV 10-0078-PHX-JAT 3:09-180 (Nevada)

Goodwin CV 10-0079-PHX-JAT 3:09-306 (Nevada)

Green CV 10-0080-PHX-JAT 3:09-374 (Nevada)

Dalton CV 10-0081-PHX-JAT 3:09-534 (Nevada)

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 14
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

 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and MERSCORP, Inc. (collectively,

“MERS”), United Guaranty Corporation, CitiMortgage, Inc., CR Title Services, Inc., Federal

Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, GMAC Mortgage, LLC, Executive Trustee Services,

Inc., Homecomings Financial, LLC, National City Bank, National City Mortgage, National

City Corporation, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., EMC

Mortgage Corporation, California Reconveyance Company, and The Bank of New York

Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Successor Trustee to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,

as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc. Bear

Stearns ALT-A Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-10.

- 2 -

I. General Interpretation of the Transfer Order

In the transfer order, the Panel transferred to this Court all allegations within these

actions that “the various participants in MERS formed a conspiracy to commit fraud and/or

that security instruments are unenforceable or foreclosures are inappropriate due to MERS’s

presence as a party” or that otherwise concern “the formation and operation” of MERS.

(Doc. #1.) However, the Panel simultaneously remanded unrelated claims to their transferor

courts, finding that “plaintiffs’ claims relating to loan origination and collection practices do

not share sufficient questions of fact with claims regarding the formation and operation” of

MERS and their inclusion “would needlessly entangle the litigation in unrelated, factintensive issues.” Id.

Accordingly, this Court will remand claims that, although naming MERS as a

defendant, allege conduct primarily related to loan origination and collection practices, or

otherwise stray from the common factual core of the MDL. This is a narrower reading than

the construction urged by Moving Defendants2

 in their Motion to Remand Claims (Doc. #54)

and their subsequent Reply (Doc. #134), but a broader one than was urged by Plaintiffs in

their Response (Doc. #101). Any cause of action that in essence turns on the formation or

operation of MERS, no matter how framed, will remain with the undersigned.

II. Claims on Which the Parties Do Not Agree

Within these six class actions transferred to the MDL there are eight types of claims

over which the parties disagree. This Order will discuss the appropriateness of remand for

each claim, treating each type of claim in turn. On the claims for which the appropriate

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 14
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

 These claims are listed in Schedule B, below.

4 See Doc. #45-1, ¶¶ 173, 178, 183, and 188; Doc. #59-1, ¶¶ 157, 161, and 166.

5 See Doc. #95 at 2.

- 3 -

disposition is undisputed, the Court adopts the parties’ determinations and will not discuss

those claims in detail.3

A. Slander of Title

Plaintiffs assert claims for slander of title in Goodwin (Fourth Claim) and Lopez

(Fourth Claim). In both cases, Plaintiffs allege that certain defendants slandered the title of

plaintiffs’ property by recording Trustee’s Deeds Upon Sale. Plaintiffs allege that the

trustee’s sales were “wrongful and invalid” because they were not “conducted in accordance

with N.R.S. 107.080 and pursuant to Nevada common law.”4

 While Plaintiffs do not make

the manner of the alleged violation entirely clear, it appears to the Court that Plaintiffs are

alleging that foreclosure was initiated by an improper party. As the defendants would be

proper parties unless the operation of MERS created deficiencies in the quality of their title,

these claims for slander of title must be related to the operation of MERS. Therefore, these

claims have been transferred to the MDL.

B. Wrongful Filing of Unlawful Detainer

This claim in Goodwin (Fifth Claim) alleges that Defendant Saxon Mortgage

wrongfully filed an action for unlawful detainer against Plaintiff Gabel. Plaintiff alleges that

Saxon Mortgage failed to comply with several of the statutory requirements to conduct a

trustee’s sale, yet sill served Plaintiff with a notice to quit the premises and filed an unlawful

detainer action against Plaintiff. (Doc. #45-1, ¶¶ 195-200.) On its face, this claim is

unrelated to the formation or operation of MERS.

Saxon Mortgage argues that some of Plaintiff Gabel’s allegations may be inartfully

pled and actually implicate issues related to the operation of MERS.5

 For example, as to

Plaintiffs allegation that “No notice of default and election to sell the property located at

1447 Kinglet Drive was mailed to Plaintiff Heather Gabel via registered or certified mail”

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 3 of 14
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

6 See Doc. #45-1, ¶ 161 (“[E]ach deed of trust at issue named MERS as the beneficiary

on the deed of trust”); Doc. #59-1, ¶ 142 (same); CV 10-0081-PXH-JAT, Doc. #1, ¶ 128

(“Each and every Plaintiff has a deed of trust that states that the beneficiary and/or

beneficiary as the nominee of the lender is MERS . . . .”); Doc. #35, ¶ 106 (same).

7 See Doc. #45-1, ¶ 121; Doc. #59-1, ¶ 92; CV 10-0081-PXH-JAT, Doc. #1, ¶ 134;

Doc. #35, ¶ 109(a).

8 See, e.g., Doc. #45-1, ¶ 159(i) (“MERS is not a true beneficiary”); Doc. #59-1, ¶

140(i) (same); Doc. #35, ¶ 92 (“[MERS] is not a beneficiary”); CV 10-0081-PXH-JAT, Doc.

#1, ¶ 135 (“MERS was not a proper beneficiary”).

- 4 -

(Doc. #45-1, ¶ 196), Saxon Mortgage speculates that Plaintiffs’ theory is actually that

Plaintiff Gabel received a purported notice, but that it was sent by an allegedly improper

party (due to some deficiency created by the operation of MERS). 

After weighing this concern, this Court still finds this claim remanded to the transferor

court. If, on remand, Plaintiffs support this claim with arguments related to the operation of

MERS, Defendant may move before the transferor court to transfer this claim to the MDL.

If the transferor court grants a motion to transfer this claim to the MDL, within two business

days of receiving that Order, MERS must file a copy of that Order in both the MDL case, and

the associated member case in Arizona.

C. Wrongful Foreclosure.

Plaintiffs assert claims for wrongful foreclosure in Goodwin (Third Claim), Lopez

(Third Claim), Green (First Claim), and Dalton (First Claim). In each case, Plaintiffs allege

that the foreclosures were commenced pursuant to a deed of trust on which MERS was

named the beneficiary as nominee for the lender.6

 Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that such

foreclosures were commenced by a trustee acting as an agent for MERS, the beneficiary as

nominee for the lender, or for a successor beneficiary to whom MERS assigned its interests

as the beneficiary on a deed of trust, as nominee for the lender.7

 The alleged wrongfulness

of the foreclosures in all four cases stems from the proposition that MERS is not a “true” or

“proper” beneficiary.8

 Plaintiffs argue that if MERS is not a true beneficiary, then a trustee

acting as an agent for MERS (or for an assignee of MERS’s interests as a deed of trust

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 4 of 14
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

9 See, e.g., Doc. #45-1, ¶ 159 (“[T]he parties issuing the notice of default and/or

issuing a notice of trustee’s sale on the property were not the proper parties to do so . . . . Any

appointment by MERS of a successor trustee or any assignment to a successor beneficiary

was invalid, as MERS is not a true beneficiary under the deed of trust”); Doc. #59-1, ¶ 140

(same); Doc. #35, ¶ 116 (“No true and no beneficiary [sic] under the deed of trust ever

directed a sale of any of the properties owned by Plaintiffs in which MERS is named as

beneficiary or nominee of the beneficiary/lender”); CV 10-0081-PXH-JAT, Doc. #1, ¶ 145

(same).

10 Doc. #35, ¶ 125 (“All borrowers who were targeted for and lured into the mortgages

sold by Defendants were handicapped in understanding the terms of those loans. This

constituted a misrepresentation that caused Plaintiffs to make their monthly payments from

- 5 -

beneficiary) is not a “proper party” to initiate foreclosure proceedings, resulting in wrongful

foreclosure liability for both MERS and its agents.9

These wrongful foreclosure claims clearly relate to the formation and operation of

MERS. Further, nothing within these claims is based on allegations specific to the

origination of particular loans or likely to involve this Court in fact-intensive inquiries

unrelated to the formation and operation of MERS. Therefore, each of the claims for

wrongful foreclosure was transferred.

D. Unjust Enrichment

Plaintiffs assert claims for unjust enrichment in Dalton (Second Claim), Green

(Second Claim), Vargas (Eighth Claim), Goodwin (Second Claim) and Lopez (Second

Claim). 

In Vargas (Eighth Claim), the alleged basis of unjust enrichment relates exclusively

to loan origination issues. Plaintiffs allege that they were unable to understand the terms of

the loan due to “the failure to translate the documents or disclosures into English” and other

failures of disclosure. (CV 09-2616-JAT-PHX, Doc. #1, ¶¶ 124-126.) These allegations are

unrelated to the formation and operation of MERS. Thus, this claim is remanded to the

transferor court.

 In Dalton and Green and there are two distinguishable bases for a claim of unjust

enrichment. There are issues concerning the origination of the loans,10 but there are also

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 5 of 14
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

the cash that represented the equity in their home to the Defendants. Moreover, upon

information and belief, the variety of additional and separate payments charged for services

and other items tangential to the loan were prohibitive. The result is that Plaintiffs, and each

class member, assumed financial burdens that they would not otherwise have assumed. . .”);

CV 10-0081-PXH-JAT, Doc. #1, ¶ 154 (same).

11 See, e.g., Doc. #35, ¶ 126 (“Plaintiffs would not have continued to make payments

on the loans if the Defendants had properly disclosed the discharge of the obligations on the

notes to the investors.”); CV 10-0081-PXH-JAT, Doc. #1, ¶ 155 (same).

- 6 -

claims for unjust enrichment based on theories relating to the operation of MERS.11 Because

either set of alleged facts would be logically sufficient to support a claim of unjust

enrichment, this Court will bifurcate the unjust enrichment claims in Dalton and Green. In

both cases, a claim for unjust enrichment on theories related to MERS will remain with the

undersigned as part of the MDL and a claim for unjust enrichment based on loan origination

issues is remanded to the transferor court. 

In Goodwin (Second Claim) and Lopez (Fifth Claim), the allegations forming the basis

of the unjust enrichment claims for most plaintiffs are based on issues related to the

formation and operation of MERS. However, several plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment

are premised only on fraud and misrepresentation at the time of the loan’s origination. Thus,

the unjust enrichment claims of Lopez Plaintiffs Evenson and Plaintiff Graves (Doc. #59-1,

¶ 132 (b-c)) and Goodwin Plaintiffs Barba and Wilburn and Plaintiffs Diaz (Doc. #45-1, ¶

151 (e, g)) are remanded to the transferor court. The undersigned will retain the unjust

enrichment claims of the other plaintiffs in Goodwin and Lopez as part of the MDL.

E. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud and Conversion 

Plaintiffs assert a claim for conspiracy to commit fraud and conversion in Robinson

(Seventh Claim) and Vargas (Sixth Claim). Moving Defendants argue that these claims

were transferred to this Court as the Panel explicitly countenanced that “allegations that the

various participants in MERS formed a conspiracy to commit fraud” (Doc. #1 at 2) should

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 6 of 14
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

12 Bank of America, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., First

Franklin Financial Corporation, LaSalle Bank, N.A., ReconTrust Company, N.A., Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A., First Horizon Home Loan Corporation, Bank of New York, as successor

to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee for BSALTA-2005-1, Bank of New York

Mellon d/b/a Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWALT, Inc.

Alternative Loan Trust 2005-45 Pass Through Certificates Series 2005-45, Bank of America

d/b/a LaSalle Bank as Trustee for Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass Through Certificates

WMALT Series 2006-AR5 Trust, America’s Servicing Company, and America’s Wholesale

Lender, See Certain Defendants’ Response to First Motion to Remand, Doc. #104.

13 See CV 09-227-TUC-JAT, Doc. # 91, ¶¶ 171-177; CV 09-2616-PHX-JAT, Doc. #5,

¶¶ 139-145. 

- 7 -

be centralized in the MDL. However, Plaintiffs and other defendants12 (“Responding

Defendants”) argue that these claims have been remanded because the causes of action allege

loan origination issues, specifically “violation of the Truth In Lending Act, the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, the Fair

Housing Act” and various state statutes.13

As these claims allege a conspiracy to commit actions which give rise to the claims

which all parties agree have been remanded, retaining these conspiracy claims would involve

the Court in fact-intensive inquiries which the Panel has precluded from the MDL.

Therefore, the claims for conspiracy to commit fraud and conversion in Robinson and Vargas

are remanded to their respective transferor courts.

F. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Plaintiffs assert a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Robinson

(Ninth Claim). Plaintiffs and Responding Defendants contend that this claim has been

remanded as the entire theory for this claim rests on alleged actions relating to improper

origination of loans. Moving Defendants contend that this claim has been transferred,

although they do not contest that a similarly worded claim in Vargas (Ninth Claim) has been

remanded. The difference between the two cases is that MERS is a named defendant in

Robinson. As MERS was not engaged in the origination of loans, Moving Defendants

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 7 of 14
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

14 See Doc. #59-1, ¶ 227 (“Defendant First American Title Company failed to properly

record its interest with the County Recorder for Pima County prior to noticing two trustee’s

sales of the Robinson Residence. . . A.R.S. § 33-804 mandates that a Notice of Substitution

of Trustee be recorded. . . ‘at the time of the substitution.’ . . . The Notice of Substitution of

Trustee appointing First American Title Company was not filed in the Pima County

Recorder’s office until January 28, 2009, almost a month after the pending Notice of

Trustee’s Sale was filed on December 31, 2008. Therefore, it logically follows that First

American Title recorded the impending Notice of Trustee’s prematurely, and therefore the

Notice of Trustee Sale is ultimately invalid.”)

- 8 -

theorize that this claim must include some other aspect related to the formation or operation

of MERS. (Doc. #134 at 11.)

This Court will not make that inference about Plaintiff’s pleadings. On its face, this

claim rests on issues related to the origination of loans which have been remanded. It may

be that the Plaintiffs erred in naming MERS or it may be that they failed to allege facts

related to the formation and operation of MERS that give rise to MERS’s liability for this

tort. In either case, remand is appropriate at this point.

G. Injunctive Relief

First, injunctive relief is not a cause of action but a remedy. However, it has been

separately listed as a claim in Dalton (Fifth Claim), Green (Fifth Claim), Goodwin (Eighth

Claim), Lopez (Eighth Claim), Vargas (Eleventh Claim) and Robinson (Tenth Claim). There

is no reason to foreclose the remedy of injunctive relief either in the proceedings before this

Court or in the proceedings before the transferor courts. Therefore, each of these claims for

relief will be retained in part (i.e., to the extent they are based on claims related to the

formation and operation of MERS), and remanded in part.

The Tenth Claim in Robinson presents a special case as it includes specific allegations

regarding the recordation of Plaintiffs Robinson’s property that are not listed elsewhere in

the complaint.14 This portion of the claim for injunctive relief is remanded.

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 8 of 14
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

- 9 -

H. Declaratory Relief

The Declaratory Judgment Act “does not provide an independent cause of action.” 

S. Jackson & Son, Inc. v. Coffee, Sugar & Cocoa Exch., Inc., 24 F.3d 427, 431 (2d Cir.

1994). Because of that fact, the appropriateness of remand depends on the underlying causes

of action for which declaratory relief is sought.

In Robinson (Eleventh Claim), Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment based on its First

Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Claims, all of which were remanded, and

its Eight Claim, which was retained. In the four other cases—Green (Sixth Claim), Dalton

(Sixth Claim), Lopez (Ninth Claim), and Goodwin (Ninth Claim)—where Plaintiffs seek

declaratory judgment, Plaintiffs’ theories supporting relief are not clearly set forth. But as

each of those cases contain some substantive claims that are remanded and others that are

retained, these claims for declaratory relief should be bifurcated. Therefore, each of these

claims for relief will be retained in part (i.e., to the extent they are based on claims related

to the formation and operation of MERS), and remanded in part.

I. Conclusion

In light of the complexity of this Order, it may be helpful to set forth the disposition

of each claim in tabular form.

Schedule A - Claims On Which The Parties Disagree

Type of Claim Case (Claim) Disposition

Slander of Title Goodwin (Fourth)

Lopez (Fourth)

Retained

Retained

Wrongful Filing of Unlawful Detainer Goodwin (Fifth) Remanded

Wrongful Foreclosure Dalton (First)

Lopez (Third)

Goodwin (Third)

Green (First)

Retained

Retained

Retained

Retained

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 9 of 14
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

- 10 -

Unjust Enrichment Dalton (Second)

Goodwin (Second)

Green (Second)

Lopez (Second)

Vargas (Eighth)

Remanded in part

Retained

Remanded in part

Remanded in part

Remanded

Conspiracy to Commit Fraud and Conversion Robinson (Seventh)

Vargas (Sixth)

Remanded

Remanded

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Robinson (Ninth) Remanded

Injunctive Relief Dalton (Fifth)

Green (Fifth)

Goodwin (Eighth)

Lopez (Eighth)

Robinson (Tenth)

Vargas (Eleventh)

Remanded in part

Remanded in part

Remanded in part

Remanded in part

Remanded in part

Remanded in part

Declaratory Relief Dalton (Sixth)

Green (Sixth)

Goodwin (Ninth)

Lopez (Ninth)

Robinson (Eleventh)

Remanded in part

Remanded in part

Remanded in part

Remanded in part

Remanded in part

Schedule B - Claims On Which All Parties Agree

Type of Claim Case (Claim) Disposition

Violation of Truth in Lending Act Robinson (First)

Vargas (First)

Remanded

Remanded

Violation of Real Estate Settlement Act Robinson (Second) Remanded

Violation of Home Ownership and Equity

Protection Act

Robinson (Third)

Vargas (Second)

Remanded

Remanded

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 10 of 14
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

- 11 -

Violation of Fair Housing Act Robinson (Fourth)

Vargas (Third)

Remanded

Remanded

Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act

Robinson (Fifth) Remanded

Violation of Arizona Consumer Fraud Act Robinson (Sixth) Remanded

Fraud in the Inducement Goodwin (First)

Lopez (First)

Vargas (Tenth)

Remanded

Remanded

Remanded

Violation of California Translation Act Vargas (Fourth) Remanded

Violation of California Business and

Professions Code

Vargas (Fifth) Remanded

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Vargas (Ninth) Remanded

Declaratory Relief Vargas (Twelfth) Remanded

Class Action Claim for Violation of

California Business and Professions Code

Vargas (Thirteenth) Remanded

Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Related to

MERS System

Goodwin (Sixth)

Lopez (Fifth)

Robinson (Eighth)

Vargas (Seventh)

Retained

Retained

Retained

Retained

Conspiracy to Commit Fraud by Creation,

Operation and Use of the MERS System

Dalton (Fourth)

Green (Fourth)

Retained

Retained

Conspiracy to Commit Wrongful

Foreclosure Related to the MERS System

Goodwin (Seventh)

Lopez (Sixth)

Retained

Retained

Conspiracy to Commit Wrongful

Foreclosure by Creation, Operation and

Use of the MERS System

Dalton (Third)

Green (Third)

Retained

Retained

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that with respect to Robinson (CV 09-227-TUC-JAT), claim 8 and

part of claims 10 and 11 remain with the undersigned as part of the MDL and claims 1-7, 9

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 11 of 14
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

15 In Lopez, the Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. #59-1) lacks a

Seventh Claim.

- 12 -

and part of claims 10 and 11 are remanded to the transferor court. Of particular note, all

claims against Defendant First American Title Company are remanded. To accomplish this

remand, the Clerk of the Court is directed to bifurcate Robinson into two cases; the Clerk of

the Court shall draw and assign a new Phoenix case number to the portion of the Robinson

case that is remaining with the undersigned and the Clerk of the Court shall consolidate that

case number into the MDL as a member case. The Clerk of the Court shall transfer the

original Robinson case number back to the transferor court (Chief Judge Roll).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with respect to Vargas (CV 09-2616-PHX-JAT)

claim 7 and part of claim 11 remain with the undersigned as part of the MDL and claims 1-6,

8-10, 12, 13 and part of claim 11 are remanded to the transferor court. MERS shall file a

copy of this Order with the transferor court within the next two business days.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with respect to Lopez (CV 10-0078-PHX-JAT)

claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 and part of claims 2, 8 and 9 remain with the undersigned as part of the

MDL and claim 1 and part of claims 2, 8 and 9 are remanded to the transferor court.15 MERS

shall file a copy of this Order with the transferor court within the next two business days.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with respect to Goodwin (CV 10-0079-PHX-JAT)

claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 and part of claims 2, 8 and 9 remain with the undersigned as part of the

MDL and claims 1 and 5 and part of claims 2, 8 and 9 are remanded to the transferor court.

MERS shall file a copy of this Order with the transferor court within the next two business

days.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with respect to Green (CV 10-0080-PHX-JAT)

claims 1, 3 and 4 and part of claims 2, 5 and 6 remain with the undersigned as part of the

MDL and part of claims 2, 5 and 6 are remanded to the transferor court. MERS shall file a

copy of this Order with the transferor court within the next two business days.

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 12 of 14
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

- 13 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with respect to Dalton (CV 10-0081-PHX-JAT)

claims 1, 3 and 4 and part of claims 2, 5 and 6 remain with the undersigned as part of the

MDL and part of claims 2, 5 and 6 are remanded to the transferor court. MERS shall file a

copy of this Order with the transferor court within the next two business days.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file a copy of this

Order in each member case listed on page 1.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with respect to any claims that are staying with

this Court, Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to those claims within the time

limits set in the Practice and Procedure Order (Doc. #25); with respect to any claims that are

remanded to the transferor courts, Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to those

claims within fifteen days of this Order, unless any order of the transferor court is

inconsistent with this Order, in which case, the order of the transferor court shall control.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any Plaintiff in any case addressed in this Order

seeks leave to amend the complaint in the future, Plaintiff shall move to amend only those

claims before this Court that Plaintiff concedes relate to the formation or operation of MERS.

With respect to any claims that the moving Plaintiff seeks to amend that said Plaintiff does

not concede relate to the operation or formation of MERS, such motion to amend must be

filed before the transferor court. If leave to amend is granted, and if any Defendant argues

that a claim of the amended complaint relates to the operation or formation of MERS, said

Defendant must move before the transferor court to transfer those claims to the MDL. If the

transferor court grants a motion to transfer some (or all) claims to the MDL, within two

business days of receiving that Order, MERS must file a copy of that Order in both the MDL

case, and the associated member case in Arizona.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within 5 days of this Order, MERS shall file all

documents related to a case bifurcated and remanded herein into the record of the transferor

court in that particular case. (Because this Court will not transfer the entire MDL file and

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 13 of 14
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

- 14 -

docket to any individual transferor court, this will insure the Judge in the transferor court has

a complete record for that specific case).

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00630-JAT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 14 of 14