Plaintiffs plead nothing to indicate as a matter of fact that they could ever have received a more beneficial modification, and they certainly had no right to one as a matter of law. See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(a). Finally, Plaintiffs claim that they were “wrongfully assessed thousands of dollars in fees” and “had their credit ruined.”

Plaintiff’s RESPA claim necessarily fails as a matter of law for this reason too. Finally, apart from generically alleging that “Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages for Bayview’s violations of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41 by proceeding with the scheduling of foreclosure sale before evaluating loss mitigation applications…” (Compl. ¶ 59), Plaintiff pleads no other facts that even remotely suggest Bayview engaged in a “pattern or practice of noncompliance” with RESPA requirements.

Because the application submitted was neither timely nor complete, Plaintiff cannot show that any duty on the part of Bayview to evaluate it pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(c) ever arose, and his cause of action for violation of 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(c) necessarily fails. IV.

The Court should therefore dismiss the wrongful foreclosure claim in Count III for all the same reasons that it should dismiss Count XIII of the CFPB Action. IV. FLORIDA’S STATE LAW CLAIMS (COUNTS V THROUGH VIII) SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. Attempting to add in some way to the CFPB Action, Plaintiffs bring four state law claims: two FDUTPA claims (Counts V and VI) that are based on the same underlying conduct 17 Regulation X was amended effective October 2017 to likewise apply only to the first complete loss mitigation application unless the borrower also became current in the period following their first application. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(i). Regardless, for the time period at issue in the SAC, Ocwen was only required to comply with Regulation X’s obligations under the previous version of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(i) to assess a borrower for a single complete loss mitigation application. Urdaneta v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 2018 WL 2234538, at *4 (11th Cir. May 16, 2018).

” 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2) (i)-(ii). Case 1:17-cv-00123-SCJ-AJB Document 3-1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 7 of 14 228098.1 8 WL 6595927 (11th. Cir.) (“The regulation also expressly states that “[n]othing in § 1024.41 should be construed to create a right for a borrower to enforce the terms of any agreement between a servicer and the owner or assignee of a mortgage loan ... with respect to the evaluation for, or offer of, any loss mitigation option or to eliminate any such right that may exist pursuant to applicable law.” Regulation X, in § 1024.41, only limits a loan servicer's ability to foreclose and only limits the servicer's ability to foreclose when the borrower has submitted a loss mitigation application within the time lines set forth in the regulation.”(internal citations omitted)). First, the allegations of Plaintiffs’ Complaint do not trigger any duties outlined in Regulation X because Plaintiffs completely fail to allege Plaintiffs submitted a completed loss mitigation package thirty-seven (37) days before a scheduled foreclosure as required to trigger Regulation X’s obligations.

Plaintiff alleges she had a complete short sale application 2 days before the foreclosure sale. Plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim for violation of 12 C.F.R. section 1024.41. E. Plaintiff's DTPA claim fails as a matter of law.

Until the servicer notifies the borrower that he is ineligible for any loss mitigation option and the borrower exhausts any appeal rights he may have, the servicer is prohibited from completing the foreclosure sale. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g). Because Plaintiff submitted a complete loss mitigation more than 37 days before the foreclosure sale, Plaintiff was entitled to a review of his complete Sixth HAMP Application and to written notice of Defendant’s determination of which loss mitigations Defendant would offer to Plaintiff before U.S. Bank, N.A. obtained its foreclosure judgment and before U.S. Bank, N.A. sold Plaintiff’s primary residence in the public foreclosure sale.

In this matter, AHMAD fails to allege Wells Fargo engaged in a debt collection activity. 4 12 C.F.R. §1024.41(g)(1). 5 12 C.F.R. §1024.41(g)(2) Case 6:17-cv-01608-RBD-DCI Document 9 Filed 09/18/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID 88 Page 10 of 14 i. No ‘debt collection’ activity alleged under FCCPA.

First, the provisions of RESPA only apply to a borrower’s first loan modification application. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(i) (“A servicer is only required to comply with the requirements of this section for a single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower's mortgage loan account.”); Wentzell v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat.

First, the provisions of RESPA only apply to a borrower’s first loan modification application. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(i) (“A servicer is only required to comply with the requirements of this section for a single complete loss mitigation Case 2:17-cv-02163-RGK-PJW Document 11 Filed 04/04/17 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 55000.2074/10595799.