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.

Yuszczak v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

January 4, 2017

STEPHEN YUSZCZAK and RITA YUSZCZAK, Plaintiffs,
v.
DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., ALIAS and JOHN DOE, ALIAS Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.

         Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 8.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.

         I. Facts and Procedural History

         Stephen and Rita Yuszczak (“Plaintiffs”) are residents of Burrillville, Rhode Island. On May 14, 2008, Plaintiffs acquired a mortgage loan for their home from Seacoast Mortgage Corporation. That mortgage was subsequently transferred to DLJ Mortgage Capital (“Defendant”), a Delaware Corporation, sometime between July of 2014 and February of 2015.[1] On February 3, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in Rhode Island Superior Court alleging that Defendant failed to notify Plaintiffs of the mortgage transfer as required under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). (ECF No. 1-1.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with the following TILA requirement:

not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer, including-
(A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new creditor;
(B) the date of transfer;
(C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor;
(D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and
(E) any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.

15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1) (emphasis in original).

         Defendant removed this lawsuit to federal court. Discovery closed on August 26, 2016 (Pretrial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 6) and Defendant subsequently submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8). After several extensions, Plaintiffs filed their Objection (ECF No. 16), and Defendant submitted a Reply (ECF No. 17).

         II. Standard of Review

         On a summary judgment motion, the parties are required to supply facts by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). The Court then views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and grants summary judgment only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any ...


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.