Opinion ID: 2555874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Initial Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (federal district court).

Text: On 24 July 2007, Respondents dismissed voluntarily their action in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and refiled their claim in federal district court. According to the federal complaint, by July 2007, it became apparent that the fraud . . . extended across three different jurisdictions [ i.e., interstate]. . . . The initial federal complaint asserted the same allegations as the previous State action, and added Chaudhrya part owner of Sussexas a named defendant. Norman was not sued or named in the initial federal complaint in any capacity. The next day, The Baltimore Sun published an article about the federal litigation relating to the mortgage rescue scam. It included Respondent Scott Borison's statement that, [a]s we kept investigating the case, it became clear that there were also federal charges to be asserted. . . . Metropolitan Money Store was out stealing the equity in people's homes and on top of that, getting it tax free. June Arney, Federal Court Gets Home-Equity Suit; Md. Case Grows into Class Action Seeking Recovery of Homes Swindled from Owners, BALT. SUN, 25 July 2007, at 3D. The article mentioned that Sussex was named as a defendant, and included a comment attributed to Chaudhry claiming that Sussex was a victim equally of Metropolitan Money Store's scam.