Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

CIGLER v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 2:15cv17. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana Number: infdco20150814893 Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM C. LEE , District Judge . This matter is before the court on a motion to reopen this case, filed by the plaintiff, Joseph A. Cigler ("Cigler"), proceeding pro se, on July 13, 2015. The defendant, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen"), filed its response on July 30, 2015. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied. Discussion On March 18, 2015, this court entered an Opinion and Order granting Ocwen's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and de
More

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on a motion to reopen this case, filed by the plaintiff, Joseph A. Cigler ("Cigler"), proceeding pro se, on July 13, 2015. The defendant, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen"), filed its response on July 30, 2015.

For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.

Discussion

On March 18, 2015, this court entered an Opinion and Order granting Ocwen's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denying Cigler's motion to remand the case back to state court. On April 3, 2015 Cigler filed a short, half-page motion requesting that his case be reopened. This motion was denied on May 27, 2015.

Cigler has now filed another "Motion to Re-Open Case and Move to State Court". In this motion, Cigler claims that Ocwen does not have a registered agent, and thus this court incorrectly held in its previous order that Cigler failed to serve Ocwen's registered agent for service of process. However, as Ocwen points out, Cigler's contention is baseless. Ocwen's Notice of Removal, served on Cigler, attached a printout from the Indiana Secretary of State's website clearly establishing that Ocwen's agent for service of process in Indiana is Corporation Service Company. (DE 1 at ¶ 5, Ex. 2)

As there is no genuine dispute that Ocwen had a registered agent for service of process in Indiana at the time of the initiation of this lawsuit, Cigler's motion to reopen case will be denied.

Conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing, Cigler's motion to reopen [DE 18] is hereby DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer