Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lynda H. Young, et al. v. Citimortgage

May 11, 2012

LYNDA H. YOUNG, ET AL.
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph N. Laplante United States District Judge

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on May 10, 2012.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 8) is approved as submitted, with the following changes:

* Expert challenges - December 15, 2012

* Summary judgment deadline - 120 days prior to final pretrial conference

* Jury trial - May, 2013

Based on the discussions between the court and counsel at the conference, the following are stricken without prejudice to being reinstated on request if warranted by the evidence:

* Counts 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Complaint.

The plaintiff will file an amended complaint on or before June 1, 2012.

* the following affirmative defenses: waiver, estoppel, consent, ratification.

In amending, counsel are reminded that the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act excludes from the definition of "debt collector" any person or entity collecting or attempting to collect "a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person," 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii), and therefore generally excludes mortgage servicers, "as long as the debt was not in default at the time it was assigned." Perry v. Stewart Title Co., 756 F.2d 1197, 1208 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Crepeau v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 11-cv-125-JL, 2011 WL 6937508, *5 (D.N.H. Dec. 5, 2011).

Summary Judgment. The parties and counsel are advised that compliance with Rule 56(e) and Local Rule 7.2(b), regarding evidentiary support for factual assertions, and specification and delineation of material issues of disputed fact, will be required.

Discovery disputes. Discovery disputes will be handled by the undersigned judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge, in the normal course. No motion to compel is necessary. The party or counsel seeking discovery-related relief should confer with adverse counsel to choose mutually available dates, and then contact the Deputy Clerk to schedule a conference call with the court. The court will inform counsel and parties what written materials, if any, should be submitted in advance of the conference call.

Customary motions to compel discovery, while disfavored by the undersigned judge, are nonetheless permissible. If counsel prefer traditional discovery litigation to the conference call procedure set forth above, any such motion to compel should expressly request, in the title of the motion, a referral to the United States Magistrate Judge. Such referral requests will ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.