GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief Judge.
The above-captioned cases are two of nine mortgage foreclosure cases assigned to this Court during the past year that were filed on behalf of the respective plaintiffs by Michigan attorney, Emmett Greenwood. Mr. Greenwood appears to have made a living off distressed clients facing foreclosure of their mortgages and/or eviction from their homes. A review of the Eastern District of Michigan docket shows no fewer than 75 foreclosure cases filed by Mr. Greenwood in the last 12 months alone, virtually none of which have survived dispositive motion practice.
In each of these cases, Mr. Greenwood filed essentially the same "cut and paste," cookie cutter complaint, each alleging the very same counts, and each replete with the same spelling, typographical, and party gender and number errors.
In those cases, in which he did respond, Mr. Greenwood filed cookie-cutter response briefs, which are identical to one another in all respects — argument for argument, paragraph for paragraph, sentence for sentence, word for word — making no attempt to demonstrate or differentiate the alleged "facts" underlying the various actions, and not responding to the particular factual or legal arguments made by the defendants. See e.g., Landis, No. 12-11996, Plaintiff's Oct. 12, 2012 Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #9; Wicht, No. 12-12965, Plaintiff's July 13, 2012 Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 4.
Furthermore, this Court, as well as numerous other Eastern District of Michigan judges, have previously dismissed Mr. Greenwood's cases pointing out in the dismissal orders the lack of legal merit to the claims alleged. See e.g., McCraney, supra, July 12, 2012 Opinion and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #11; Bahnam, supra, Aug. 14, 2012, Opinion and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #11; see also, Jenkins v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 12-12278 (Steeh, J.), July 25, 2012 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 7; Saxton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-11670 (Cohn, J.), August 17, 2012 Memorandum and Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Dismissing Case, Dkt. # 12; Enyia v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., No. 12-12118 (Battani, J.), Aug. 31, 2012 Opinion and Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 11; Evans v. LNV Corporation, 12-12287 (Edmunds, J.), Sept. 13, 2012 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 6. Undeterred by these dismissals, Mr. Greenwood has continued to file his cookie-cutter complaints and his same cookie-cutter brief in response to dispositive motions.
Even after being criticized by this Court and several other judges for this practice, he remained undeterred and continued his cookie-cutter filings. See, e.g., Nagy v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n, No. 12-14149 (Rosen, J.), Nov. 9, 2012 Order for Plaintiff and his Counsel to Show Cause
In Kopko, Judge Duggan was explicit. After noting the previous dismissals by various judges of Greenwood's cookie cutter complaints, Judge Duggan admonished Mr. Greenwood:
Id. at p. 11-12, n. 6. See also, Saroki v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. 12-13961 (Duggan, J.), Oct. 31, 2012 Opinion and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 8 ("Unfortunately for the individuals he represents, Mr. Greenwood has filed the identical cookie-cutter complaint in every case ... and the judges in this District consistently have held that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Complaint in the present case is no exception."); Jewell v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n, 12-10979 (Cleland, J.) Nov. 30, 2012 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 7 (referring to Plaintiff's non-responsive response brief as "an empty exercise consisting of" nothing more than "statements of either law or unremarkable fact" and mere "summary assertion[s].")
But even these criticisms and admonishments did not deter Mr. Greenwood and he has continued with his cookie-cutter filings. Therefore, on November 28, 2012, this Court entered an Order to Appear and Show Cause in Landis and Wicht, directing Mr. Greenwood to appear before the Court on January 9, 2013 and show cause why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 "for filing pleadings and briefs that present factual contentions lacking evidentiary support, and claims and legal contentions not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending or modifying existing law." See Landis, No. 12-11996, Dkt. #10; Wicht, No. 12-12965, Dkt. # 5. Mr. Greenwood, however, failed to appear as ordered.
Because of the inconvenience he caused defense counsel and the Court by his failure to appear on January 9th, as a first step to remedy and address his non-appearance, and to deter any further such conduct by him, the Court ordered Greenwood to pay to the Court a fine of $1,000 and further ordered him to pay the attorneys' costs and fees incurred by the Defendants in connection with their attorneys' appearance and response to the Show Cause Order. See Jan. 11, 2013 Order, 2013 WL 141655, Awarding Costs and Fees and Assessing Landis, Dkt. # 12; Wicht, Dkt. # 7. The Court also served upon Mr. Greenwood a Renewed Order to Appear and Show Cause, together with a copy of the transcript of the January 9, 2013 hearing, directing Mr. Greenwood to appear before the Court on January 24, 2013, with his clients, and
Landis, 1/11/13 Order, Dkt. # 12, p. 3; Wicht, 1/11/13 Order, Dkt. # 7, p. 3.
One would think being threatened with sanctions, contempt and disciplinary proceedings, would have sufficed to deter continued abusive process, but not for Mr. Greenwood. On January 22, 2013, two weeks after this Court issued its Renewed Order to Show Cause (with the transcript of the January 9, 2013 hearing attached), Mr. Greenwood filed a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Bollini v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-10136, another case assigned to this Court — a response which is identical to the responses he has filed in all of the other cases — typographical and spelling errors and all — and which is non-responsive to the arguments made by Defendant Wells Fargo.
Furthermore, Mr. Greenwood filed this cookie-cutter Response Brief in Bollini less than a week after another Judge of this Court specifically advised him of the lack of legal merit in the arguments he presents. See Rabbah v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., No. 12-14599, 2013 WL 153729, Jan. 15, 2013 Opinion and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment (Cox, J.) see also Youif v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 12-11387, Jan. 8, 2013 Opinion and Order (Zatkoff, J.).
On January 24, 2013, Mr. Greenwood finally appeared before this Court. He not deny his practice of repeatedly filing cookie-cutter complaints and briefs. Perhaps even more egregiously, he admitted that he uses his cookie-cutter filings for one purpose only — to delay judicial proceedings in other courts. He admitted using the pendency of actions in this Court as a defense in state eviction proceedings, specifically arguing that the state court should dismiss or stay the eviction proceeding because of the pendency of a parallel action in this court. Mr. Greenwood admitted using this delay tactic in the Landis case.
[2/24/13 Hearing Transcript, Landis, No. 12-11996, Dkt. # 15, p. 21-24]
While, in and of itself, there may be nothing wrong with arguing for dismissal or abstention in state court based on the pendency of a parallel action in federal court, that presupposes that there is some colorable, cognizable legal merit to the federal action. But here, Mr. Greenwood has repeatedly been advised that his complaints lack legal merit. Under these circumstances, the Court views Mr. Greenwood's tactic as an egregious abuse of the legal process.
The Court also views as equally, if not more troublesome, the fact that Mr. Greenwood admitted requiring each of his clients to pay him as a retainer "generally, between $1,000 and $1,500." Indeed, Jodie Landis, one of the Plaintiffs here, stated on the record on January 24, 2013 that, as of January 24, 2013, she has paid Mr. Greenwood $3,300. The Court finds it deeply troubling that Mr. Greenwood has taken $3,300 from Ms. Landis, for the scant amount of work he has done in this action, i.e., file one cookiecutter complaint and one cookie-cutter brief in response to a dispositive motion, and making one incourt appearance.
The Court is concerned that what Mr. Greenwood is doing amounts to a virtual fraud on the public. To compound the very unfortunate circumstances of property owners like Plaintiffs Landis and Wicht who are facing foreclosure and/or eviction from their homes by giving them false hope through the filing vexatious and frivolous lawsuits, and then using those lawsuits as nothing more than a delay tactic, is not only unfair to the defendant banks and lenders who have to defend the actions, but also is unfair to the plaintiffs themselves who cannot afford to pay their mortgages much less pay an attorney under the false pretense of pursuant a legitimate legal claim and remedy.
For all of the foregoing reasons, and for the further reasons stated by the Court on the record on January 24, 2013, which are incorporated herein by reference,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in addition to the $1,000.00 that he was previously ordered to pay to the Court as sanctions for his non-appearance on January 9, 3013, Emmett Greenwood shall pay to Trott & Trott, P.C., counsel for Defendant Fannie Mae (a/k/a Federal National Mortgage Association) in the Landis case, the sum of $2,880.00 for costs and fees incurred in connection with this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Emmett Greenwood shall pay to Orlans Associates, P.C., counsel for Defendant The
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if upon review and consideration of the merits of Defendants' Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motions, the Court finds that the Complaints filed by Mr. Greenwood on behalf of the Plaintiffs lack legal merit, the Court will order Mr. Greenwood to refund to the parties whatever monies he has taken from them.
Failure of Mr. Greenwood to pay any of the sanctions ordered will result in contempt.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Greenwood be referred to the Chief Judge pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 83.22(c)(3) for institution of disciplinary proceedings under L.R. 83.22(e), as well as for consideration as to whether this matter should be referred to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission for investigation.
SO ORDERED.
Boyd v. Bank of America,
2:12-cv-10351-NGE-MAR NA, successor by merger filed 01/26/12
to BAC Home Loans closed 05/08/12
Servicing, LP
2:12-cv-10370-DPH-MAR Jabow v. Chase Home filed 01/27/12
Finance LLC closed 06/29/12
2:12-cv-10620-DPH-MJH Harvey v. PNC Bank, N. filed 02/13/12
A. closed 06/29/12
2:12-cv-10730-LPZ-MAR McKendrick v. Fannie Mae filed 02/17/12
closed 08/07/12
2:12-cv-10814-NGE-LJM Powers v. Chase Bank filed 02/22/12
USA, N.A. closed 05/30/12
2:12-cv-10824-JAC-MKM Petrie v. Federal National filed 02/23/12
Mortgage Association closed 05/23/12
Johnson v. Federal
2:12-cv-10838-GER-DRG National Mortgage filed 02/24/12
Association closed 10/19/12
McCray v. JP Morgan
2:12-cv-10949-GER-PJK Chase Bank National filed 03/01/12
Association
2:12-cv-10957-DML-MAR Ware v. Detusche Bank
National Trust Company filed 03/02/12
2:12-cv-10979-RHC-MJH Jewell v. Federal National filed 03/05/12
Mortgage Association closed 11/30/12
2:12-cv-11065-DML-MJH Koyle v. Fannie Mae filed 03/09/12
closed 08/02/12
2:12-cv-11082-GER-MJH McCraney v. Bank of filed 03/12/12
America, N.A. closed 07/27/12
2:12-cv-11110-VAR-LJM McCoy v. The Bank of filed 03/13/12 New York Mellon closed 06/19/12 2:12-cv-11387-LPZ-DRG Yousif v. Deutsche Bank filed 03/27/12 National Trust Company closed 01/08/13 2:12-cv-11583-PDB-RSW Janny v. HSBC Bank filed 04/06/12 closed 04/16/12 2:12-cv-11670-AC-MKM Saxton v. Wells Fargo filed 04/13/12 Bank, N.A. closed 08/17/12 2:12-cv-11759-AJT-LJM Adams-Woods v. Bank of filed 04/20/12 America, N.A. et al closed 07/26/12 2:12-cv-11996-GER-PJK Landis v. Fannie Mae filed 05/03/12 2:12-cv-12006-SJM-LJM Tishbi v. Wells Fargo filed 05/03/12 Bank, N.A. closed 07/09/12 2:12-cv-12047-AC-RSW Rydzewski v. The Bank of filed 05/07/12 New York Mellon closed 09/12/12 2:12-cv-12116-DPH-MAR DiLorenzo v. BAC Home filed 05/10/12 Loans Servicing, LP closed 10/26/12 Enyia v. The Federal Home 2:12-cv-12118-MOB-RSW Loan Mortgage filed 05/10/12 Corporation et al closed 08/31/12 Godoy v. The Federal 2:12-cv-12136-DML-LJM Home Loan Mortgage filed 05/11/12 Corporation et al closed 10/16/12 2:12-cv-12157-VAR-RSW Burns v. The Bank of New filed 05/14/12 York Mellon closed 07/30/12 2:12-cv-12278-GCS-RSW Jenkins v. Wells Fargo filed 05/24/12 Bank, N.A. closed 07/25/12
2:12-cv-12287-NGE-MAR Evans v. LNV Corporation filed 05/24/12 closed 09/13/12 Allor v. Federal Home 2:12-cv-12290-NGE-DRG Loan Mortgage filed 05/25/12 Corporation closed 10/24/12 2:12-cv-12303-GER-MAR Bahnam v. Green Tree filed 05/25/12 Servicing, LLC closed 08/14/12 2:12-cv-12379-RHC-MKM Gracey v. One West Bank filed 06/01/12 FSB closed 08/07/12 2:12-cv-12522-VAR-MAR Hoppe v. Wells Fargo filed 06/11/12 Bank, N.A. closed 08/21/12 2:12-cv-12566-AJT-MJH Shin v. JPMorgan Chase filed 06/13/12 Bank National Association closed 10/15/12 2:12-cv-12589-GER-DRG Phelps v. Nations Star filed 06/14/12 Mortgage LLC closed 11/26/12 2:12-cv-12629-AC-LJM Ellison v. JP Morgan filed 06/15/12 Chase, NA closed 10/02/12 2:12-cv-12654-GCS-MJH Malone v. the Bank of New filed 06/18/12 York Mellon McLean v. The Federal 2:12-cv-12666-AJT-MJH Home Loan Mortgage filed 06/19/12 Corporation 2:12-cv-12768-LPZ-LJM Crenshaw v. Wells Fargo, filed 06/25/12 N.A. closed 08/03/12 2:12-cv-12777-PJD-DRG Joseph v. JPMorgan Chase filed 06/25/12 Bank, National Association closed 01/22/13 2:12-cv-12921-DPH-MJH Kanou v. JP Morgan Chase filed 07/03/12 Bank NA closed 10/31/12
Wicht v. The Federal 2:12-cv-12965-GER-RSW Home Loan Mortgage filed 07/06/12 Corporation 2:12-cv-13070-PDB-RSW Miller v. Department of Veterans Affairs filed 07/12/12 2:12-cv-13186-NGE-MAR Sylvester v. Fannie Mae filed 07/20/12 closed 10/03/12 2:12-cv-13447-LPZ-MKM Strothers v. CitiMortgage, filed 08/06/12 Inc. closed 01/11/13 2:12-cv-13558-BAF-MJH Tocco v. Federal National filed 08/10/12 Mortgage Association closed 12/06/12 2:12-cv-13759-LPZ-MAR Nagy v. Federal National filed 08/24/12 Mortgage Assocation closed 12/20/12 2:12-cv-13941-PJD-MJH Kopko v. The Bank of New filed 09/06/12 York Mellon closed 10/23/12 2:12-cv-13961-PJD-DRG Saroki v. The Bank of New filed 09/07/12 York Mellon closed 10/31/12 2:12-cv-14149-GER-MKM Nagy v. Federal National filed 09/19/12 Mortgage Association closed 12/06/12 2:12-cv-14264-DPH-MAR Edmonds v. Wells Fargo filed 09/26/12 Delaware Trust Company closed 01/31/13 London et al v. Federal 2:12-cv-14359-GCS-LJM Home Loan Mortgage filed 10/01/12 Corporation closed 01/31/13 Rabbah et al v. Federal 2:12-cv-14599-SFC-DRG Home Loan Mortgage filed 10/17/12 Corporation closed 01/15/13
Mitkovski v. Federal 2:12-cv-14799-VAR-DRG National Mortgage filed 10/29/12 Association Visingardi v. Federal 2:12-cv-14974-GER-RSW National Mortgage filed 11/08/12 Association 2:12-cv-15021-DPH-MKM Shepard v. U.S. Bank National Association filed 11/13/12 2:12-cv-15313-LJM Kidd v. OneWest Bank filed 12/03/12 FSB 2:12-cv-15381-JAC-LJM Allos v. Fannie Mae filed 12/07/12 2:12-cv-15459-GCS-DRG Kokona et al v. Bank of America, N.A. filed 12/13/12 2:12-cv-15479-NGE-MJH Gullett v. MidFirst Bank filed 12/14/12 Yousif v. Federal Home 2:12-cv-15566-SJM-RSW Loan Mortgage Corporation filed 12/19/12 2:12-cv-15570-PDB-RSW Gowen v. Everbank filed 12/19/12 Shamoun v. Federal 2:12-cv-15608-PJD-LJM National Mortgage filed 12/21/12 Association et al 2:12-cv-15645-SJM-MAR Lukose v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed 12/26/12 2:12-cv-15695-AC-LJM Veal v. One West Bank, filed 12/31/12 FSB 2:13-cv-10069-SFC-DRG Cox v. U.S. Bank National Association et al filed 01/08/13
2:13-cv-10112-GAD-LJM Yangouyian v. Capital filed 01/11/13 One, NA 2:13-cv-10136-GER-MJH Bollini v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al filed 01/14/13 2:13-cv-10141-NGE-DRG Thierry v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al filed 01/15/13 2:13-cv-10169-PDB-DRG Pakulski v. Clearvue Opportunity XV, LLC filed 01/16/13 Petway v. HSBC Bank 2:13-cv-10314-LPZ-MJH USA, National Association filed 01/25/13 et al Daley et al v. Mortgage 2:13-cv-10382-PJD-RSW Electronic Registration filed 01/30/13 Systems et al England v. Mortgage 2:13-cv-10438-AC-RSW Electronic Registration filed 02/04/13 Systems et al 4:12-cv-12317-MAG-LJM Terry v. Wells Fargo Bank, filed 05/29/12 (Flint) N.A. 4:12-cv-12523-GAD-MAR Mitchell v. Wells Fargo filed 06/11/12 Bank, N.A. closed 01/18/13 (Flint) 4:12-cv-13613-MAG-LJM Kristensen v. Fannie Mae filed 08/15/12 closed 10/16/12 (Flint) 5:12-cv-15560-JCO-LJM Ajayi v. Fannie Mae filed 12/19/12 (Ann Arbor) 5:13-cv-10186-JCO-MAR Jewell v. Sand Canyon Corporation et al filed 01/16/13 (Ann Arbor)
