Shugart v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 747 F.Supp.2d 938, 945 (S.D. Ohio 2010). Edgar has sufficiently alleged actual pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages that stem from NSM's breach of duty under 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) and is owed damages under 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1)(A) and NSM's motion to dismiss should be denied. III.

Then, a borrower may also be entitled to statutory damages upon a showing of a “pattern or practice of noncompliance.” See Renfroe, 822 F.3d at 1247 n.4 (observing without ruling “that the use of ‘additional’ seems to indicate that a plaintiff cannot recover pattern-or-practice damages in the absence of actual damages”); Ford v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 797 F. Supp. 2d 862, 870 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (finding no plausible claim under Section 2605 in the absence of a showing of actual damages because remedies for violations are conditioned upon actual damages to the borrower). Even if the Court were to ignore this plain statutory language, it still cannot find that Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages in this case.

Moreover, a central purpose of Section 2605 is to protect mortgage-loan- paying homeowners from dispossession of their homes due to their not having received sufficient notice of a change in loan servicers and any related changes to instructions for timely and proper submission of loan payments. Section 2605's notice requirement is a procedural safeguard aimed at ensuring that a homeowner's failure to make required mortgage loan payments, and any resulting notice of default, is not due solely to the homeowner not having been notified about a change in loan servicers. While in many, and perhaps even most, cases the mortgage-loan paying homeowner is a signatory to the loan documents, and therefore a "borrower" in the strictest sense, in many instances the mortgage-l

. Here, pursuant to the requirements of 12 U.S.C. § 2605, Caliber’s obligations only apply to the borrower of a mortgage loan. Because Plaintiffs are not the borrowers (see RJN, Exh. A), Caliber had no duty to comply with requirements of this statute as it pertains to Plaintiffs.

Because Plaintiffs cannot show any actual damages caused by these alleged RESPA violations, they cannot recover additional damages either. Second, there is insufficient evidence that Ocwen engaged in “a pattern or practice of noncompliance with” 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). “The term ‘pattern or practice’ in a federal statute is not a term of art but rather is defined according to the usual meaning of the words.

36(k) Violation of 12 CFR 1026.39 58 Failure to provide notice of transfer of servicing from PHH to SLS Violation of 12 USC § 2605 59 Failure to provide breach/demand letter nor a 14-day foreclosure referral notice N/A 71 “Distortion of the facts and an intentional manipulation” of documents provided to Newlands on or about November 1, 2014 Violation of TCPA, T.C.A. § 47-18-104(a) Violation of 15 USC § 1692e(10)(14) Wells Fargo 40 Never acknowledged or responded to Newlands’ written dispute (Complaint Exhibit 7) Violation of 15 USC 1666(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) 48 Failure to provide billing statements after April 2013 Breach of Contract Violation of 12 CFR 226.7 50 Failure to provide Newlands of assignment, sale or transfer of Note and DoT; Failure to provide Newlands with breach/demand letter, notice of acceleration or 14 day notice of referral to foreclose; Failure to provide foreclosure attorneys with affidavits of personal knowledge or other “accurate documentation” Breach of Contract (DoT) Violation of 15 USC § 1641(g) Violation of 12 CFR 1026.

163. WHEREFORE, by reason of said violations, pursuant to 12 USC 2605(f), Mr. Bowen is entitled to relief including statutory, actual, compensatory, consequential, and emotional damages; court costs; reasonable attorney's fees; and any and all other elief permitted by law. COUNT VII Intentional and/or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 164.

12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1) allows an aggrieved plaintiff to recover two types of damages from a loan servicer for its violation of the Act—“(A) any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure; and (B) any additional [statutory] damages, as the court may allow, in the case of a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the requirements of this section, in an amount not to exceed $1,000.” A loan servicer who fails to comply with RESPA and Regulation X faces damages in the form of “any actual damages caused by the failure, and up to $[2],000 in Case 8:17-cv-00085-JDW-TGW Document 6 Filed 02/03/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID 534 Orlando v. Ocwen CASE NO: 8:17-CV-00084-JDW-TGW Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice Page 14 WDC 373456401v1 statutory damages if there is a pattern or practice of noncompliance with RESPA.” McLean v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 398 F. App’x 467, 471 (11 th Cir. 2010) (citing 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)). Thus, a plaintiff seeking to recover under RESPA must show that he or she “suffered actual damages or is entitled to statutory damages.” Jackson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 11–60560–CIV,

163. WHEREFORE, by reason of said violations, pursuant to 12 USC 2605(f), Mr. Bowen is entitled to relief including statutory, actual, compensatory, consequential, and emotional damages; court costs; reasonable attorney's fees; and any and all other elief permitted by law. COUNT VII Intentional and/or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 164.

28 Plaintiff has not identified any actual damages arising out of an alleged violation of 28 Am. compl., at 2. Case 3:16-cv-00420-N-BF Document 18 Filed 07/14/16 Page 14 of 26 PageID 168 PENNYMAC CORP.'S BRIEF SUPPORTING Page 9 ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-420; Bagley v. PennyMac Corp. 12 U.S.C. section 2605(c) or identified how the alleged violation impeded her ability to pay her loan.29 Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim. B. Plaintiff's wrongful foreclosure claim is insufficient and fails as a matter of law.