1

The Court originally scheduled this matter for hearing. Upon review of the

record, however, the Court finds that oral argument is not necessary. See E.D. Mich.

LR 7.1(f)(2).

2

There is no Count II in the Amended Complaint.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LONNIE BROWN and LISA BROWN,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-11481

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., HONORABLE AVERN COHN

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS, and AMERICA’S WHOLESALE

LENDER, 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 11)1

AND

DISMISSING CASE

I. Introduction

This is a mortgage case. Plaintiffs Lonnie and Lisa Brown are suing defendants

Countywide Home Loans, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, and

America’s Wholesale Lender. Plaintiffs raise a host of claims, phrased as follows:

Count I - wrongful foreclosure and declaratory action

Count III2

 - breach of contract

Count IV - terminate foreclosure sheriff’s deed & permanent restraining order

Count V - quiet title
2

Count VI - negligence and gross negligence

Count VII - intentional infliction of emotional distress

Count VIII - unreasonable debt collection practices under Michigan law

Count IX - violation of the Michigan debt collection practices act

Count X - deception trade practices act

Count XI - breach of fiduciary duty

Count XII - punitive damages

Count XIII - wrongful foreclosure by advertisement 

Count XIV - attorney fees

Before the Court is defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and for

summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted and the

case will be dismissed. 

II.

Plaintiffs owed real property in Springfield Township which was subject to a

mortgage held by defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as

nominee for defendant America’s Wholesale Lender (AWL). Defendant Countrywide

Home Loans (Countrywide) serviced the mortgage. Plaintiffs defaulted on the

mortgage. Countrywide, on behalf of MERS, began foreclosure proceedings and

retained a law firm to handle the proceedings. Eventually, the property was sold at a

Sheriff’s sale to MERS who obtained a Sheriff’s deed. 

On April 20, 2009, just prior to the expiration of the statutory redemption period,

plaintiffs filed a multi-count complaint in state court, claiming several errors in the

foreclosure proceedings. Defendants removed the case to federal court on the grounds
3

of federal question jurisdiction. The Court held a status conference with the parties on

May 26, 2009 after which it entered an order directing plaintiffs to file an amended

complaint within thirty (30) days and directing that defendants take no action for 30 days

or until the amended complaint was filed. Plaintiffs failed to timely file an amended

complaint. Accordingly, on July 13, 2009, the Court entered an order requiring plaintiffs

to file an amended complaint within ten (10) days or face dismissal of the case. 

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 24, 2009. A scheduling order was issued

on August 11, 2009.

On January 15, 2010, defendants filed the instant motion for judgment on the

pleadings and summary judgment. Plaintiffs did not file a response within the time

period required by the local rules. On February 25, 2010, the Court issued a Notice of

Hearing for March 30, 2010. The Notice specifically states that “a response shall be

filed on or before March 12, 2010. No extensions will be granted.” To date, plaintiffs

have not filed a response to defendants’ motion.

In the motion, defendants address each count of plaintiffs’ complaint and explain

why plaintiffs have not stated a viable claim against any of the defendants. Defendants’

papers also describe the foreclosure proceedings in detail, with attached exhibits. 

III.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) provides:

(2) Opposing Party's Obligation to Respond. When a motion for summary

judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing party may not rely merely

on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must--by

affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule--set out specific facts showing a

genuine issue for trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, summary

judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party. 
4

Given plaintiffs’ failure to file a response, defendants are entitled to judgment if their

motion is properly brought. The Court has reviewed defendants’ motion to ensure that

there are no genuine issues of material fact in the case. Conducting that review, and in

view of the applicable law, the Court concludes that defendants’ motion should be

granted for the reasons stated in defendants’ brief. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is

GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 24, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, March 24, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160