*fn5,The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reggie B. Walton United States District Judge,LISA KOKER, PLAINTIFF, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS." />

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.

Koker v. Aurora Loan Servicing, LLC

United States District Court, District of Columbia

January 3, 2013

Lisa KOKER, Plaintiff,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Page 52

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 53

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 54

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 55

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 56

Craig A. Butler, Butler Law Group, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Bizhan Beiramee, Beiramee & Cohen PC, McLean, VA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Lisa Koker brings this action against Aurora Loan Servicing, LLC (" Aurora" ), Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (" MERS" ), James E. Clarke, and Atlantic Law Group, LLC (" Atlantic Law" ), asserting claims for wrongful foreclosure and unlawful trade practices in violation of District of Columbia and federal law. See Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Damages, Declaratory and Other Equitable Relief and Civil Penalties (" Compl." ) ¶¶ 9-93. Currently before the Court are two motions to dismiss filed by Aurora and MERS (the " Lender Defendants" ), and Clarke and Atlantic Law (the " Trustee Defendants" ). Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions,[1] the Court concludes for the following reasons that the defendants' motions must be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The complaint contains the following allegations. On November 9, 2006, the plaintiff purchased residential real estate located at 4754 6th Place, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017 (the " Property" ). Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7. She " refinanced the Property on March 26, 2007, and the Deed of Trust ... was recorded among the Land Records of the District of Columbia on April 4, 2007" (the " Deed of Trust" ). Id. ¶ 8. Although " [t]he lender referenced in the Deed of Trust was American Brokers Conduit," id., Aurora is now the " purported noteholder for the Property," id. ¶ 3. MERS was " a corporation acting as the nominee of

Page 57

American Brokers Conduit and then ... Aurora," and was also " the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust." Id. ¶ 4. Clarke " served as the Substitute Trustee" under the Deed of Trust, and is a member of Atlantic Law. Id. ¶¶ 5-6.

In " June 2008, [the p]laintiff commenced communication with Aurora regarding a loan modification." Id. ¶ 15. She sought the loan modification because she was experiencing " financial hardship ... due to the circumstances surrounding her divorce." Id. The plaintiff subsequently entered into three forbearance agreements with Aurora between June 2008 and February 2009. See id. ¶¶ 15-17. Although the plaintiff paid Aurora in accordance with the terms of her forbearance agreements, " Aurora initiated [f]oreclosure proceedings" as to the Property " on February 13, 2009, after Aurora had received the [plaintiff's] initial installment payment." Id. ¶ 18.

" On August 17, 2009, [the p]laintiff filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy case" in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia " in an attempt to prevent foreclosure and save her home." Id. ¶ 19. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed " a Chapter 13 plan ... on November 11, 2009," and entered a " Consent Order Modifying the Stay ... on April 30, 2010." Id. " However, the stay was eventually lifted and Aurora proceeded with foreclosure and ... conducted a foreclosure sale [of] the Property on September 21, 2010." Id.

Following the foreclosure sale, " Aurora initiated a Complaint for Possession of Real Property in the Landlord Tenant Branch of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia [ (" Superior Court" ) ] on January 4, 2011." Id. " On February 1, 2011, [the p]laintiff filed a Verified Answer Interposing Pleas of Title" in the Superior Court action. Id. The Superior Court subsequently entered, with the parties' consent, a " protective order/undertaking" requiring the plaintiff " to pay $1200.00 into the Court Registry each month." Id. " The case was then certified to the Civil Division" of the Superior Court. Id. The plaintiff, however, failed " to make certain protective order payments." Id. Consequently, the Superior Court sanctioned the plaintiff by striking her plea of title defense on November 18, 2011, and transferred the case back to the Landlord Tenant Branch. Id. The Superior Court then granted Aurora's motion for summary judgment on March 6, 2012, and issued a Writ of Restitution on March 13, 2012. Id.

The plaintiff instituted this action in the Superior Court on March 21, 2012. Aurora then removed the case to this Court on June 29, 2012. The plaintiff's complaint asserts the following thirteen counts:

• Count I (Violation of D.C.Code § 28-3904— Against Defendant Aurora)
• Count II (Violation of D.C.Code § 42-815— Against All Defendants)
• Count III (Violation of D.C.Code § 47-1431— Against MERS, James E. Clarke, and Atlantic Law)
• Count IV (Violation of D.C.Code § 28-3904— Against All Defendants)
• Count V (Breach of Contract— Against All Defendants)
• Count VI (Tortious Interference with a Contract— Against All Defendants)
• Count VII (Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing— Against All Defendants)
• Count VIII (Breach of Fiduciary Duty— Against James E. Clarke and Atlantic Law)
• Count IX (Violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605— Against Defendants Aurora and MERS)

Page 58

• Count X (Declaratory Relief/Quiet Title— Against All Defendants)
• Count XI (Equitable Estoppel— Against All Defendants)
• Count XII (Unjust Enrichment— Against All Defendants)
• Count XIII (Injunctive Relief— Against ...

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.