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.

Hamilton v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

August 4, 2015

JAMES GARY HAMILTON, Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants

Page 329

JAMES GARY HAMILTON, Plaintiff, Pro se, Rancho Santa Fe, CA.

For JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, HOME SALES INC., Defendants: Michael Bertrand Roberts, LEAD ATTORNEY, REED SMITH LLP, Washington, DC.

For U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant: Alejandro E. Moreno, J. Barrett Marum, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, San Diego, CA; Matthew L. Riemer, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, Washington, DC.

For WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Defendant: Elizabeth P Papez, LEAD ATTORNEY, WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, Washington, DC.

For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America, Interested Party: Jennifer A. Short, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, DC.

Page 330

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, United States District Judge.

James Gary Hamilton, who is proceeding pro se, lost his California home to foreclosure after he fell behind on his mortgage. In this case, the third federal lawsuit he has filed over the foreclosure, Hamilton has sued four financial institutions with connections to the mortgage. He seeks cancellation of the foreclosure due to a variety of alleged deficiencies in the sale of the mortgage; accuses one of the Defendants, U.S. Bank, of violating the Truth in Lending Act (" TILA" ) by failing to notify him of the assignment of the mortgage; brings claims under the False Claims Act as a relator on behalf of the United States; and seeks to enforce a 2012 consent decree between the federal government and numerous banks, including two of the Defendants here, prohibiting a variety of deceptive mortgage-servicing practices. The Defendants have moved to dismiss Hamilton's complaint. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant their motions.

I. Background

In 1999, Hamilton purchased a home in Rancho Santa Fe, California, with the help of a $700,000 loan from Downey Savings & Loan Association, F.A., which was secured by a deed of trust on the property. Compl. ¶ ¶ 2, 54. Hamilton alleges that the deed of trust was securitized and sold to a real estate mortgage investment conduit, with Wells Fargo as the Securities Administrator. Id. ¶ 2. The entire loan was later acquired by U.S. Bank when it purchased Downey's assets in receivership. Id. ¶ 2. In 2010, after Hamilton defaulted on the mortgage, his home was foreclosed and

Page 331

sold to HomeSales, Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan. Id. ¶ ¶ 1, 68.

Hamilton brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against U.S. Bank and HomeSales, Inc., as well as a variety of other institutions and individuals, alleging violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, and state law claims for quiet title, wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, and fraudulent inducement. Hamilton v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:11-cv-00977, (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). The district court dismissed Hamilton's federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Id.

Hamilton now brings an eight-count Complaint in this Court against JPMorgan Chase Bank, U.S. Bank, HomeSales Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank. Count One seeks cancellation of the 2010 foreclosure, alleges that Defendants lacked standing to foreclose on the property, and claims that the foreclosure constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress. In Counts Two through Five, Hamilton seeks to bring claims under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, as a relator on behalf of the United States and on behalf of a class of mortgagors. Count Six seeks to enforce a Consent Judgment entered into between several banks, including JP Morgan and Wells Fargo, and the federal government in a prior case in this district. See Consent Judgment, ECF Nos. 10 and 14, United States v. Bank of America Corp., 12-361, (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2012) (" Consent Judgment" ). Count Seven alleges that U.S. Bank violated the Truth in Lending Act (" TILA" ), 15 U.S.C. ยง 1601, by not ...


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.