Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WEEKES v. INDYMAC BANK MORTGAGE SERVICES, 12 CV 5350 (SJ) (CLP). (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York Number: infdco20130422f51 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 21, 2013
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2013
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STERLING JOHNSON, Jr., Senior District Judge. Elwin Weekes and Varene Daley ("Plaintiffs") filed this action on October 26, 2012, claiming that defendants violated various federal statutes in the course of persuading Plaintiffs to re-finance a home purchased by them over 20 years ago, including the Truth in Lending Act, 11 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. , the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. , the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.C.
More

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

STERLING JOHNSON, Jr., Senior District Judge.

Elwin Weekes and Varene Daley ("Plaintiffs") filed this action on October 26, 2012, claiming that defendants violated various federal statutes in the course of persuading Plaintiffs to re-finance a home purchased by them over 20 years ago, including the Truth in Lending Act, 11 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1639, et seq., the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691, et seq., as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983. Appended to these claims were claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, claims pursuant to New York's general business law, and additional common law claims.

In a nutshell, Plaintiffs claim that defendants targeted minority homeowners, lured Plaintiffs (both African-American) to refinance their home without the aid of legal counsel and failed to provide the mandatory disclosures that would have informed them that the terms of the refinance were all but favorable to Plaintiffs, in that the low interest rate promised would soon be substituted with one way higher and financially unmanageable.

On February 21, 2013, Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak ordered Plaintiffs to file a status report. By this time, 120 days had elapsed since the filing of the complaint and, according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court "must" at that point dismiss the action unless "good cause for the failure" is shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

The status report indicated that defendants had yet to be served because plaintiff Weekes "tried to modify his mortgage but a modification agreement could not be reached." (Dkt. No. 3.) Weeks requested an additional 40 days to serve defendants. Judge Pollak then issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the action be dismissed. Objections to the Report were due on April 5, 2013. There were none.

SO ORDERED.

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