Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Garmou v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 15-12161. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20160517a65 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 16, 2016
Latest Update: May 16, 2016
Summary: ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY BRIEF ROBERT H. CLELAND , District Judge . Pending before the court is Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment," (Dkt. # 10), filed January 20, 2016. Although the matter has been fully briefed, upon review of the submitted materials, the court concludes that further briefing is necessary on two issues related to Plaintiff's claim under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2601-1
More

ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY BRIEF

Pending before the court is Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment," (Dkt. # 10), filed January 20, 2016. Although the matter has been fully briefed, upon review of the submitted materials, the court concludes that further briefing is necessary on two issues related to Plaintiff's claim under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-17.

In their original Motion, Defendants argued that "[t]here is no evidence to support Plaintiff's claim that he submitted a loss mitigation application to Kondaur." (Dkt. # 10, Pg. ID 100). In response, Plaintiff provided the court with a copy of a mortgage assistance application he allegedly submitted to Defendants via fax on April 28, 2015. (Dkt. # 13, Pg. ID 298-305.) The fax cover page shows that this document was directed to "Tonya" at Kondaur Capital, and lists as the fax number (877)-566-3287. (Id. at Pg. ID 299.) Nevertheless, the fax confirmation page shows that the fax was sent to a different telephone number entirely, (248)-205-4118. In their reply, Defendants argue that "[(248)-205-4118] is not a fax number for Kondaur and Kondaur never received this alleged fax, nor has Plaintiff ever demonstrated this occurred." (Dkt. # 14, Pg. ID 310.) Furthermore, Defendants argue that even if they did receive the application, it was not submitted early enough to prohibit the foreclosure sale under the regulations.

Because these arguments were not fully articulated in Defendants' original Motion, the court—acting sua sponte and in the interest of justice—will grant Plaintiff the opportunity to respond. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE to file a sur-reply brief, narrowly focused on the issues outlined above, on or before May 23, 2016. The brief shall be no longer than five pages, and may include additional exhibits as necessary to address the specific issues discussed.

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