Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/50608660/AP-Class-Action
Timestamp: 2017-07-27 03:51:42
Document Index: 503570616

Matched Legal Cases: ['§151', '§1409', '§ 1334', '§ 501', '§ 101', '§1409', '§\n2201', '§ 105', '§ 105', '§ 501', '§ 501', '§ 502', '§ 152', '§ 105', '§ 105', '§ 105', '§ 105', '§ 105', '§ 105', '§ 105', '§ 501', '§ 501', '§ 502', '§ 501', '§ 501', '§ 105', '§ 501', '§ 105', '§ 501', '§ 105', '§ 501', '§ 105']

AP Class Action | Bankruptcy | Bankruptcy In The United States
AP Class ActionUploaded by bdavies910Related InterestsBankruptcyBankruptcy In The United StatesClass ActionLawsuitComplaintRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: GLOBAL CAPITAL LAW, P.C. Gary Harre [86938] Diane Beall [86877] 8700 Warner Ave, Ste 200 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attorney For Debtor, NELSON VO
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ...View MoreGLOBAL CAPITAL LAW, P.C. Gary Harre [86938] Diane Beall [86877] 8700 Warner Ave, Ste 200 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attorney For Debtor, NELSON VO
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA DIVISION In re NELSON VO, an Individual; Plaintiff, -vs.CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, AS SERVICING AGENT TO ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY,Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content1 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 28GLOBAL CAPITAL LAW, P.C. Gary Harre [86938] Diane Beall [86877] 8700 Warner Ave, Ste 200 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Telephone: (714) 907-4182 Facsimile: (714) 907-4175 Email: ghcmecf@gmail.com Attorney For Debtor, NELSON VO
In re NELSON VO, an Individual; Plaintiff, -vs.CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, AS SERVICING AGENT TO ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC; Defendants.
Case No. 8:10-bk-26258-TA CHAPTER 13 ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ADV. NO. _______________________ CLASS ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Comes now, NELSON VO, by and through his counsel, files this Original Complaint and Application for Injunctive Relief against Defendant, CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC (“Chase” or “ Defendant,” or “ Defendant Chase”), complaining of Chase’s pattern and practice of violating the provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In support of the pleadings, Plaintiff respectfully shows the court as follows: //
1 Original Complaint
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This class action is brought by Plaintiff to remedy Defendant Chase’s
consistent pattern and practice of disregard for the provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code. 2. Specifically, this class action is brought to remedy Defendant’s
pattern and practice of abusing the entire bankruptcy process by filing false and misleading Proofs of Claim in bankruptcy cases. 3. Chase specifically and purposely disregards the Bankruptcy Code
and, through false, fraudulent, misleading and undocumented Proofs of Claim, illegally collects or attempts to collect amounts from debtor that Chase cannot document and/or are not actually owed. Defendant’s routine and persistent filing of undocumented and false Proofs of Claim is an abuse of process and is in violation of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. 4. Plaintiff seeks a finding that Defendant’s acts are in violation of the
Code and Rules, and that Plaintiff and class members are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary, actual and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees, a finding of contempt and the issuance of sanctions against Defendants Chase for practices and failure to abide by the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code. The practices complained of herein represent common policies and practices of Defendant and similarly affect all members of the proposed class. This Court has jurisdiction over this Adversary Proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§151, 157 and 1334(b). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1409. II. PRELIMINARY STATMENT 5. Jurisdiction of this action arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, 11 U.S.C.
§§ 501 and 502 and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001. Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for violation of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
2 Original Complaint
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1409; and
because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district. Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection in this district, Chase filed its Proof of Claim in this district, and Defendant transacts business in this district. 7. Plaintiff’s action for declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§
2201 and 2202. Plaintiff’s actions for a finding of contempt of provisions of the Bankruptcy Code are authorized by 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 501, and 502 and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001. Plaintiff’s Request for Injunctive Relief is authorized by 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 501 and 502, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7065. Plaintiff’s Request for Class Relief is authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7023. III. PARTIES 8. 9. Plaintiff Nelson Vo resided at 60 Bombay, Irvine, California. Defendant is, on information and belief, a subsidiary of a Federal
Savings Bank with its office in Columbus, OH, which may be served with process by serving its registered agent, C.T. Corporation System in Los Angeles, California, by certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested. IV. NATURE OF THE ACTION 10. A creditor may file Proof of Claim. 11 U.S.C. § 501. Fed. R. Bankr. P.
3003(c)(1). A Proof of Claim is a written statement setting forth a creditor’s claim. A Proof of Claim shall conform substantially to the appropriate official form. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a). When a claim is based on writing, the original or duplicate shall be filed with the Proof of Claim. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c). If a security interest in property of the debtor is claimed, the Proof of Claim shall be accompanied by evidence that the security interest has been perfected. Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 3001(d). In addition, the Official Form requires that the claimant attach supporting documents, such as a Promissory Note, Purchase Orders, Invoices, and itemized statements of running accounts, contracts, judgments, mortgages, security agreement and evidence of perfection of lien. Official Form B10. The Advisory Committee Note related to this portion of one version of Official Form B10 states: “If the claim includes prepetition interest or other charges such as attorney’s fees, a statement giving a detailed breakdown of the elements of the claim is required.” A Proof of Claim that is executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure constitutes “prima facie evidence” of the validity and the amount of the claim. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(b). A claim, proof of which is filed under 11 U.S.C. § 501, is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest objects. 11 U.S.C. § 502. The penalty for filing a fraudulent claim is a fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both. 18 U.S.C §§ 152 and 3571. 11. Despite these mandates, Chase has engaged in a pattern and
practice of abusing debtors who have filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy code (the “Code”) by filing false, fraudulent, misleading and undocumented Proofs of Claim in the nation’s Bankruptcy Courts. 12. Chase, and its affiliates under the Chase umbrella, have been
operating under the assumption that the fees and costs in their Proofs of Claim in consumer cases are invulnerable to challenge because debtors lack the sophistication, the debtors’ bar lacks the financial motivation, and the Bankruptcy Courts lack the time to call them to task on their false Proofs of Claim. In re Prevo, 394 B.R. 847, 848-49 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008). 13. Indeed, Chase, and other members of the mortgage industry, are
intentionally trying to game the system by filing Proofs of Claim with
4 Original Complaint
undocumented and excessive fees, and misleading or false information, and then (sometimes, but not always) reducing those fees only after being exposed by debtors’ counsel through and objection. The system cannot work if lenders violate the Code and Rules in the first place by filing false and misleading claims, only to amend them if “caught” by the debtors’ bar with and objection, or, worse, litigate the debtor to death over claims that were not even legitimate when filed. Such a “system,” if it can be called that, is inherently unfair to the debtors and their counsel because they are forced to litigate claims that were false and fraudulent, and not filed in accordance with the rules/ in the first place. The economics of such matters makes it likely, much more often than not, that the debtors and the trustees will simply pay the claims, even if they are false. 14. Indeed, although debtors bear the initial burden of raising objections
to claims, they should not be saddled with expenses incurred in filing objections to claims, they should not be saddled with expenses incurred in filing objections to Proofs of Claim that were false and fraudulent when filed in the first place. Lenders must take some responsibility for complying with the minimum requirements for filing a Proof of Claim by attaching supporting documents in the first instance before the issue is raised by debtors’ counsel. Tate v. Nations Bank Corp. (In re Tate), 253 B.R. 653, 666 (Bankr. W.D. N.C. 2000). In addition, the Court has a duty to protect debtors from paying unsupported and potentially overreaching charges, and it cannot do so if the claim is false, fraudulent, misleading and unsupported. See Prevo, 394 B.R. at 850. 15. By this suit, Plaintiff seeks to remedy Chase’s consistent pattern and
practice of disregard for federal law and to prevent its wrongful filing of Proofs of Claim in the United States Bankruptcy Courts. Individually, and on behalf of the entire class, Plaintiffs seek a finding that Defendant’s acts are in violation of
5 Original Complaint
the Bankruptcy Code, and an abuse of the Bankruptcy Courts of this country. Plaintiff further seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary, actual and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, a finding of contempt and the issuance of sanctions against Chase for its actions. V. SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS & CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 16. Chase, and its affiliates, is among the largest mortgage lenders in the
nation. Through its lending activities, Chase is, and has been, a creditor in thousands of consumer bankruptcy proceedings throughout the country. The dollar amount of Defendant’s debt that has been subjected to consumer bankruptcy proceedings under the Code is in the millions of dollars. Defendant’s business practices are subject to, among other things, the Code and the Rules. 17. For a number of years, Chase has engaged in a common course of
conduct to ignore the mandates of the Code by systematically filing false, misleading and undocumented Proofs of Claim. Chase purposely does not have policies and procedures in place to file accurate and documented claims. Even after objections are filed, Chase either withdraws or amends the claim, and/or Chase and its counsel engage in unconscionable litigation over the claim, still refusing to provide the required documentation. As described in more detail herein, all such actions are in direct violation of the Code and Rules, and constitute an abuse of process. 18. Chase’s fraudulent practices are made with reckless disregard for
the truth and the mandates of the Code. 19. This process of false, misleading, and undocumented claims occurs
numerous times throughout the United States at a tremendous and unconscionable cost to unsophisticated consumer debtors, their counsel, their creditors, the bankruptcy court systems in which they operate, and the rule of
6 Original Complaint
law und the Bankruptcy Code. 20. Through its actions, on information and belief, Chase has wrongfully
collected or attempted to collect millions of dollars of debt in bankruptcy proceedings, and have caused millions of dollars in damage to debtors and their counsel in paying and/or responding to Chase’s false claims. Chase’s policies and practices are manifestly unlawful in that they cause Chase to (a) conceal from all parties the nature of the claimed debts and the required documentation for the claimed debts, (b) deprived debtors, their counsel, the Trustees and the Courts of the ability to analyze the claims and determine if the amounts claimed are accurate and justified, (c) commit perjury in the United States Bankruptcy Courts of America, (d) destroy the debtor’s ability to formulate an accurate reorganization plan based on actual, documented debt, and (e) deprive other creditors of money from the estate because the Trustee pays money from the estate to Chase, based on its false and fraudulent Proofs of Claim. Indeed, Chase’s actions destroy a key component of the bankruptcy processes in America. By its actions, Chase has shown it is not only indifferent to the requirements of the United States Bankruptcy Courts of the country. 21. Section 105 may be used to sanction the filing of a false or
fraudulent Proof of Claim because it is violative of the Bankruptcy Code and abusive of the bankruptcy process. In re Verona, 388 B.R. 705, 716 (Bankr.E.D. Va. 2008). The filing of a false or fraudulent claim in a bankruptcy case “would unquestionably constitute an abuse of the claims process as well as an attempted fraud upon the court.” Id. Filing a false or fraudulent claim in a bankruptcy “is also violative of any number or specific Bankruptcy Code provisions, warranting the imposition of sanctions.” Id. 22. The bankruptcy system simply cannot operate if mortgage lenders
can force debtors to spend thousands of dollars litigating a claim to force the
7 Original Complaint
lender to provide information regarding the claim, which the lender was supposed to include with the claim. The system especially cannot operate if they claims filed by the lenders are false and fraudulent in the first place. VI. SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS AS TO PLANTIFF NELSON VO 23. On November 22, 2004, Plaintiff executed and delivered to Argent
Mortgage Company, LLC, a Promissory Note in the principal face amount of $710,000.00. The Note was secured by a Deed of Trust. 24. 25. On November 15, 2010, the Debtor filed Case No. 08:10-bk-26258. On December 27, 2010, Chase filed a Proof of Claim, Claim No. 5. In
the “Proof of Claim Addendum” in Exhibit A of the Proof of Claim, Claim No. 5 the facts are set forth as follows: Total Debt as of: Interest rate: Principal Balance: Interest from last installment: Escrow Advance: Total Debt: $758,409.93 Total Arrearages as of: Payments: From: 08/01/09 – 12/01/09 5 payments @ $6,794.41 From: 01/01/10 – 06/01/10 6 payments @ $6,338.61 From: 07/01/10 – 11/01/10 5 payments @ $5,903.66 Total Arrearages: $101,522.01 *see Escrow Transaction History page of “POC Addendum” 26. The claim had no supporting documentation for the amounts
9.1250% $676,558.92 $75,274.94 $6,576.078*
$33,972.05 $38,031.66 $29,518.30
claimed and did not make sense. 27. The claim is being made by Chase Home Finance, LLC, as Servicing
Agent to Argent Mortgage Company, LLC (“Argent”). However, the copy of non
8 Original Complaint
original copy of Promissory Note indicated that Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, had endorsed the Note without recourse to Ameriquest Mortgage Company (“Americquest”). The endorsement was made by Wayne Lee, President. 28. Thereafter, Ameriquest Mortgage Company endorsed the Note in
blank to unknown party. Again, the endorsement was made by Wayne Lee, President/C.E.O. 29. Furthermore, there is no documented agency agreement between
Chase and Argent, who no longer have interest in the Promissory Note. 30. Attached to the Claim is the Deed of Trust, which indicated that
Argent was the Lender and Beneficiary under the Deed of Trust. However, there is no assignment of such beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust that was ever assigned to anyone. VII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 31. Because Chase’s wrongful conduct is widespread and uniform,
Plaintiff would show the Court that this case should be certified for class action treatment pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and/or (b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 32. The class Plaintiff seeks to represent consists of:
Individual debtors who filed for protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code after January 1, 2009, and in which Chase filed a proof of claim. 33. The class is so numerous, numbering in the tens of thousands of
members, with class members throughout the country, that joinder of all class members is impracticable. A class action is the only feasible method of adjudicating the rights of the affected borrowers, and, absent allowance of certification of a class action, a failure of justice will result. 34. The Plaintiff’s claims are likewise, typical of those of the un-named
class members. The Plaintiff has been subjected to the same misconduct as the
9 Original Complaint
members of the proposed class. They seek similar remedies for themselves and the absent class members. 35. This plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all
class members and in the administration of all matters relating to claims stated herein. Moreover, they are prepared and willing to obtain redress of the wrongs committed by Defendant and will adequately protect the interests of the class. 36. To that end, Plaintiff has retained capable counsel experienced in
bankruptcy matters, Federal Consumer Law and complex consumer class-action litigation. Neither the Plaintiff, nor his counsel, has any conflicts that would interfere with the vigorous prosecution of this action. 37. The questions of law and fact common to all class members which
predominate over those pertaining to individual class members only include, but are not limited to, whether Chase engaged and engages in the policies and practices complained of and whether such actions violate the Code and the Rules and Constitute an abuse of process as alleged herein. In addition, Chase, in pursuing the procedures challenged herein, has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole. 38. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy in that (a) the class necessarily consists of persons in unfavorable economic circumstances who are not able to pay to maintain individual actions against Defendant, (b) many class members and their counsel will not be able to recognize that Defendant’s Proof of Claim are fraudulent and/or false, (c) many class members and Trustees will not challenge Defendant’s false and fraudulent claims, even if they suspect the claims are false or fraudulent, and (d) there is no reason that the Bankruptcy Courts should be burdened with multiple lawsuits challenging Defendant’s practices. //
10 Original Complaint
REQUEST FOR RELIEF RELIEF FOR FALSE, MATERIALLY INACCURATE AND/OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS OF FACT 39. Plaintiff hereby repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 40. Claim. 41. Chase authorized, directed and caused the filing of the Proof of Claim Chase authorized, directed and caused the filing of the Proof of
that contained false, materially inaccurate and/or misleading representations of fact. Chase filed its Proof of Claim in an attempt to obtain money or property from the Debtor and/or the bankruptcy estate. Chase’s conduct and practices in filing the Proof of Claim created unnecessary delay and expense in the administration of this bankruptcy case. Chase’s conduct and practices in filing the Proof of Claim are sanctionable under the Court’s inherent powers and under 11 U.S.C § 105. 42. Plaintiff and the class ask this Court to find Defendant in contempt
pursuant to its inherent powers and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) due to its repeated wrongful actions. Based upon such findings, Plaintiff seeks an award of actual damages, sanctions, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. RELIEF FOR REPEATED FAILURE TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF PLEADINGS AND ACCOUNTS 43. Plaintiff hereby repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth here. 44. Chase directed and caused the filing of the Proof of Claim that
contained allegations that were inaccurate and/or misleading concerning the Debtor’s obligations in this case. 45. Chase’s conduct and practices in authorizing, directing and causing
11 Original Complaint
the filing of its Proof of Claim are indicative of a repeated failure to ensure the accuracy of its pleadings and accounts. Chase filed the Proof of Claim in an attempt to obtain money or property from the debtor and/or the bankruptcy estate. Chase’s conduct and practices have created unnecessary delay and expense in the administration of this bankruptcy case. By its conduct, Chase has acted in bad faith in the conduct of litigation before the Court and the rules are not up to the task of adequately sanctioning such conduct. 46. By its conduct, Chase has abused the bankruptcy process and its
conduct and practices are sanctionable under the Court’s inherent powers and 11 U.S.C § 105(a). 47. Plaintiff and the class ask the Court to find Defendant in contempt
pursuant to its inherent powers and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) due to its repeated wrongful actions. Based upon such findings, Plaintiff seeks an award of actual damages, sanctions, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. RELIEF FOR CONTEMPT, ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND RELIEF PURSUANT TO COURT’S INHERENT POWES AND 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) 48. Plaintiff hereby repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth here. 49. Chase directed and caused the filing of the Proof of Claim that
contained allegations that were false, fraudulent, undocumented, inaccurate and/or misleading concerning the Debtor’s obligations in this case. 50. Chase filed the Proof of Claim in an attempt to obtain money or
property from the debtor and/or the bankruptcy estate. Such conduct, including unjustified litigation, has created unnecessary delay and expense in the administration of this bankruptcy case. By its conduct and practices, Chase has acted in bad faith of such a nature that the rules are not up to the task of adequately sanctioning Chase for its conduct. Chase’s conduct and practices
12 Original Complaint
are sanctionable under the Court’s inherent powers and under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). 51. Plaintiff and the class ask this Court to find Defendant in contempt
pursuant to its inherent powers and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) due to its repeated wrongful actions. Based upon such findings, Plaintiffs seek an award of actual damages, sanctions, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE AND RULES 52. Plaintiff hereby repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth here. 53. Chase’s actions violate 11 U.S.C. §§ 501, 502 and Bankruptcy Rule
3001. Plaintiff request that the Court award actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees for Chase’s violations of the Code and the Rules. OBJECTION TO CLAIM 5 and CLAIM 6 54. Plaintiff hereby repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth here. 55. 11 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 502 and the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP” or “Bankruptcy Rules”) 3001, 3002, 3003, 3005, 3006, 3007 and 3008 govern the way in which creditors and equity security holders present their claims or interests to the bankruptcy court, and provide the guidelines within which such claims are allowed or disallowed in the bankruptcy proceeding. 56. Creditors filing a Proof of Claim based on a writing must attach
either the original, or a copy, of the writing. Rule 3001(c). In re Stauder, 396 B.R. 609 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2008) (when the claim does not attach the documentation required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c) the claim cannot serve as prima facie proof of its validity); In re Rogers, 391 B.R. 317 (M.D.
13 Original Complaint
La. 2008); In re Brooks, 2008 WL 2993948 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2008); In re Reyna, 2008 WL 2961973 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2008). If the claim includes prepetition interest, attorneys’ fees, or other charges, a statement providing a breakdown of the elements of the claim is required. 57. A security interest in the property of the debtor is claimed, however,
CHASE identified itself as servicer to Argent Home Mortgage, LLC, without any supporting document to demonstrate authority as Servicer to act on the behalf of Argent Mortgage Company, LLC to file this instant Proof of Claim. 58. Despite such unsupported authority, CHASE submitted evidence of
such proof by way of an unauthenticated copy of a Note (hereinafter “Note”) dated November 22, 2004, purportedly executed by such Debtor to lender Argent Mortgage Company, LLC. Also included was a purported Deed of Trust (hereinafter “DOT”) as security interest on the same Debtor without showing any authority to bring this claim; has standing; or that the security interest has been perfected, as required under F.R.B.P. Rule 3001(d) and F.R.B.P. 3002; and is facially defective and does not constitute prima facie validity of the claim. 59. In addition, Argent’s POC has indicated that their secured interest is
in the amount of $758,409.93, but there is no accurate accounting and basis as to how Argent arrived at such an amount, or even how their indicated interest rate was determined. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 502 (a), Debtor objects to Argent’s POC as to the claim amount. Additionally, any arrearages, if any, are not accurately itemized, nor does the POC reflect any itemized fees, current monthly payment owed, along with an accurate interest rate from which to base any payments owed. Argent’s POC is so devoid of detail that this Court must consider it unenforceable against Nelson Vo. 60. The Promissory Note was made payable to Argent Mortgage
Company, LLC. Evidence as produced to support Argent’s POC did not indicate
14 Original Complaint
that the promissory had been endorsed back to Argent or any other named entity. The Deed of Trust states that Argent is the Lender, and Beneficiary. No recorded document suggests that Argent transferred its beneficial interest to Chase Home Finance, LLC. 61. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting CHASE’s authority to file
this Proof of Claim. There is no attached Pooling and Servicing Agreement (herein after known as "PSA") which identifies that CHASE is the servicing agent for Argent Mortgage Company, LLC. Assuming arguendo that CHASE is the servicer of this subject loan, there is no notice of change in servicer as required under RESPA, and there is no documentation or amendment identifying CHASE as the newly appointed party as servicer. 62. By filing a false and misleading claim, Chase has failed to establish
the prima facie validity of its claim. Plaintiff objects to the claim under 11 U.S.C. § 502 and request that the Court disallow it. 63. The documents in the record before this Court speak for themselves.
CHASE has not established standing as a “creditor” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code; therefore CHASE lacks standing to file a Proof of Claim, or to object to confirmation. CHASE is an unauthorized party and cannot file this Proof of Claim since CHASE does not have standing as agent for Argent Mortgage Company, LLC. 64. Therefore, Argent’s POC does not satisfy the requirements of Rule
3001(c) and thus, not prima facie evidence of a claim and must be disallowed. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 65. Plaintiff hereby repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs, as it fully set forth here. 66. As outlined in the preceding counts and the preceding factual
allegations, the Defendant has violated § 501 of the Code and Bankruptcy Rule
15 Original Complaint
3001. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendant’s filing and litigation of false Proofs of Claim are per se an abuse of process, an abuse of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules, and that such actions violate 11 U.S.C. §§ 501, 502 and Bankruptcy Rule 3001. REQUEST FOR INJUCTIVE RELIEF 67. Plaintiff hereby repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs, as it fully set forth here. 68. Title 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) allows the Court to exercise its equitable
powers where necessary or appropriate to facilitate implementation of Code provisions, including the imposition of temporary and permanent injunctions. 69. Unless restrained, Chase will, in all likelihood, continue to violate
Federal Law by filing false and undocumented Proofs of Claim and continuing in unreasonable and abusive litigation with respect to such false, fraudulent, undocumented, and misleading claims. As a result, Plaintiff and the class seek a permanent injunction to enjoin further violations of the law by Chase. REQUEST FOR ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES 70. Plaintiff hereby repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth here. 71. Through the filing of false, misleading and undocumented Proofs of
Claim, Chase has inflicted actual damages upon Plaintiffs and the absent class members by collecting from them and their estate amounts not owned under the law. Such amounts should be disgorged from Defendant and returned to the debtors from whom they were wrongfully taken. 72. Plaintiff further seeks imposition of all available damages, penalties,
sanctions and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Defendant from future misconduct.
16 Original Complaint
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 b. 73.
REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Plaintiff hereby repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth here. 74. As outlined in the preceding counts and the preceding factual
allegations, the Defendant has violated §§ 501, 502 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 3001. 75. Defendant’s violations can be remedied by the specific Code section
violated as well as under and pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers and 11 U.S.C. § 105. 76. Moreover, the Plaintiff has been forced to retain legal counsel and
have incurred reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees on their own behalf and that of the class. Such fees are properly taxed against Chase by virtue of its flagrant abuse of the bankruptcy process and violation of 11 U.S.C. § 501 of the Code and Bankruptcy Rule 3001. 77. Plaintiff and class members are entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant
to 11 U.S.C. § 105, the Court’s inherent contempt powers, and other sections cited herein for this action and any appeals taken in this action. IX. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant the following relief in favor of Plaintiff and the members of the class: a. Issuing a Declaratory Judgment declaring that Defendant’s conduct constitutes the filing of false, fraudulent, and undocumented Proofs of Claim, that the filing of such Proofs of Claim and subsequent vexatious litigation constitute an abuse of process and an abuse of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules; Issuing a declaratory judgment declaring that Defendant’s conduct violates 11 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 502 of the Bankruptcy Code, and
17 Original Complaint
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 g. f. e. d. c.
Bankruptcy Rule 3001; Enjoining Defendant from further filing false, fraudulent, misleading and undocumented Proofs of Claim; Awarding Plaintiff and class members compensatory damages, including disgorgement, restitution and attorneys’ fees and costs, and/or punitive damages and sanctions, for Defendant’s actions; Awarding Plaintiff and class members pre-judgment and postjudgment interest, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witnesses’ fees, disbursements, accounting, class costs and other costs of litigation; Finding the Defendant in contempt under the Court’s inherent powers and 11 U.S.C. § 105 for abuse of process, abuse of the Bankruptcy Code, abuse of the Federal Bankruptcy Court system, and abuse of the statutorily-mandated Bankruptcy Code sections applicable, and awarding Plaintiffs and class members appropriate relief including attorneys’ fees and costs, sanctions, and other such relief deemed appropriate by this court; and Awarding such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Global Capital Law, P.C.
Dated: 03/12/2011
_______________________________ By Gary Harre, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff, NELSON VO
18 Original Complaint
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To AP Class ActionSkip carouselclass action chase home fiance llcCross Electric Company, Inc. v. United States of America, in Re Cross Electric Company, Inc., Debtor, 664 F.2d 1218, 4th Cir. (1981)Maritime Electric Company, Inc., a New York Corporation v. United Jersey Bank, a New Jersey Banking Corporation Michael Gill and Maritime Electric Company, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation. Michael Gill, Third-Party v. Maritime Electric Company, Inc., a New York Corporation Thomas Gill, Individually and in His Capacity as President of Maritime Electric Company, Inc., (n.y.), Third-Party Maritime Electric Co., Inc., (Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant) and Thomas Gill (Third-Party Defendant), 959 F.2d 1194, 3rd Cir. (1992)Patricia Dzikowski v. Northern Trust Bank of Fla., 478 F.3d 1291, 11th Cir. (2007)US Supreme Court10000021153In Re Paolo Gucci, Debtor. Licensing by Paolo, Inc., Paolo Gucci Design Studio, Ltd. And Trackwise Sales Corporation and Orologi Paolo, Inc. v. Frank G. Sinatra, as Trustee of the Substantively Consolidated Estates of Paolo Gucci Guccio Gucci, S.P.A. And Gucci America, Incorporated, 126 F.3d 380, 2d Cir. (1997)Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,248 Claude Pitrat, Trustee Kendrick M. Mercer, P.C. And First Interstate Leasing Service Corporation, Movants/appellees v. Ronald S. Garlikov and Reda S. Garlikov, Stanley W. Fogler, Trustee First Interstate Leasing Service Corp. And Kendrick M. Mercer, Movants/appellees v. Richard James Flindall, 992 F.2d 224, 1st Cir. (1993)10000020540Isgur Opinion10000001698Entered Final DIP Financing OrderIndiana Pensioners' Motion to Move Chrysler Case to Federal Court1000001722910000000712Thomas Tew, Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Esm Government Securities, Inc. v. Arizona State Retirement System, 873 F.2d 1400, 11th Cir. (1989)In reSewell WebIn Re Ralph J. Valenti and Mary Phyllis Valenti, Debtors. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Ralph J. Valenti and Mary Phyllis Valenti, and Andrea E. Celli, Esq., Chapter 13 Trustee, Trustee-Appellee, 105 F.3d 55, 2d Cir. (1997)1403 FlemIn ReApplication.to.Stay.closing.of.Cases.10.29.09 (1) (1)10000000230
10000001668In reBankruptcy Filing of Chevrolet-Saturn of HarlemSaturn Distribution's Bankruptcy FilingBarayoga vs APT10000023390Documents About BankruptcySkip carouselBankruptcy WorksheetGT Advanced Technologies Request to Void Apple AgreementsLawsuit Against Ruth Madoff (Irving Picard)Circuit City C.F.O.'s Bankruptcy Filing AffidavitLehman Examiner's Report, Vol. 6Arcapita Bank Chapter 11 petitionMGM's Bankruptcy PetitionLehman's Chapter 11 Reorganization PlanPatriot Coal's Bankruptcy PetitionU.S. Trustee's Objection to AlixPartners's G.M. FeesGeneral Growth Properties' Bankruptcy FilingREVENGE OF THE DEBTORS - WHO CAN LEGALLY ENFORCE A MORTGAGE AFTER A “LANDMARK” CASEDefective Real Estate DocumentsSecuritization is IllegalAffidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss Dan Snyder v. Washington City Paper and Dave McKennaNBA Constitution and by LawsMortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Appellant, V. Lisa Marie Chong, Lenard e SchwartzerSummary of Tribune BankruptcyGeneral Motors' Bankruptcy PetitionMF Global's bankruptcy petitionUnderstanding the Securitization Process and the Impact on Consumer Bankruptcy CasesFidelity's (LPS) Secret Deals With Mortgage Companies and Law FirmsLehman Examiner's Report, Vol. 8Pershing Square Third Quarter Investor LetterExaminer's Report in re Dynegy HoldingsResCap's Chapter 11 FilingLehman Examiner's Report, Vol. 9Harry & David's Chapter 11 petitionMF Global trustee's statementMortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc and Country Wide Home Loans Inc v Warren e Agin Trustee AppelleeMore From bdavies910Skip carouselDavies Bap Volume 2 of 2 davies v. detsche bank national trust company as trustee of the Residential asset securitization trust 2007-A5, under the pooling and servicing agreement dated 03012011Davies Bap Volume 01 of 02 Davies Bap Volume 2 davies v. detsche bank national trust company as trustee of the Residential asset securitization trust 2007-A5, under the pooling and servicing agreement dated 03012011MERS OPPO 4TH RJN 03 25 11Visio Brian Mers Audit TrailPLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEUTSCHE BANK DEMMURRER TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE WHITEOpp-dbntc 4ac- Dem Str Rjn Bk Ind Mers 04052011