Thus, Plaintiffs cannot state a valid claim for relief under § 1641(g) and their entire Complaint is due to be dismissed, with prejudice. V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Plaintiffs have failed to state a valid claim for relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) of the TILA and, thus, that Plaintiffs' entire Complaint is due to be dismissed, with prejudice. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, CitiMortgage respectfully requests that this Court enter an order dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Respectfully submitted this the 23rd day of August, 2011: Case 1:11-cv-00403-B Document 6 Filed 08/23/11 Page 7 of 8 1935489 v1 8 /s/ Zachary D. Miller

Section 1641(f)(2) does not provide for a servicer's liability for damages if it fails to comply with the section's obligations, 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f) (2), and the only provisions within Section 1641 concerning servicer liability limits a servicer's liability to situations in which the servicer was once an assignee or owner of the loan. 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(1). […] Because TILA does not impose liability upon a servicer who is not an owner or assignee of a note, the private right of action that Section 1640(a) creates would be meaningless, unless agency principles permit a creditor to be held liable for Section 1641(f)(2) violations committed by its servicer.

Case 0:12-cv-60177-KMW Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2012 Page 5 of 6 {23501957;1} 6 IV. CONCLUSION The Baptistes cannot allege any set of facts that could impose liability on BANA, as Trustee pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1640(a) for the loan servicer's alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. 1641(f)(2). The Baptistes' complaint should be dismissed entirely and with prejudice.

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 1026.39 52 Failure to “abide by the terms of the agreement [presumably the HELOC modification agreement] and failure to include any reference to the [HELOC] Modification Agreement in the assignment of mortgage” on December 24, 2013 from Morgan Stanley to Wells Fargo Gross Negligence and/or Willful Misconduct Case 3:15-cv-00309-PLR-HBG Document 70-1 Filed 06/16/17 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 1071 54 Failure to notify Newlands of Transfer of DoT to Wells Fargo Breach of Contract Violation of 15 USC § 1641(g) Violation of 12 CFR 1026.39 56 “Actions and inactions” Breach of Contract Violation of 15 USC § 1666 Violation of 12 CFR 1026.

Not true. Plaintiff alleged any statute of limitations is tolled by the discovery [FAC ¶13, 266] At ¶13 plaintiff alleged that defendants’ intentional, knowing and fraudulent concealment of the true facts tolls any statute of limitations, and expressly recited that defendants concealed facts when under a duty to disclose under TILA, 15 USC §1641(g) (assignee’s duty to notify debtor of new obligee) and under the new HBOR. Defendants reassert the ridiculous argument that the note contains a clause which recites that the note “can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.”

That provision states as follows: Upon written request by the obligor, the servicer shall provide the obligor, to the best knowledge of the servicer, with the name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the obligation or the master servicer of the obligation. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1641(f)(2). Nationstar asks this Court to write into Section 1641(g) a caveat that no liability can ensue unless a plaintiff first make a request under Section 1641(f)(2).

Bus. & Prof. § 17204. The provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g), by contrast, are distinct, and do not purport to confer Proposition 64 standing. In any event, as detailed herein, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Section 1641(g).

However, TILA expressly provides that “[a] servicer of a consumer obligation … shall not be treated as an assignee … unless the servicer is or was the owner of the obligation.” 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(1); see also id. § 1641(f)(2) (stating that “[a] servicer … shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation for purposes of this section on the basis of an assignment of the obligation from the creditor or other assignee to the servicer solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation”).

Case 5:16-cv-02653-DOC-DTB Document 23 Filed 02/13/17 Page 37 of 39 Page ID #:398 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 B R Y A N C A V E L L P T H R E E E M B A R C A D E R O C E N T E R , 7 T H F L O O R S A N F R A N C IS C O , C A 9 4 1 1 1 -4 0 7 0 1809777.1\C086264\0551910 26 DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 16-CV-02653- CJC-DTB show any damages stemming from purported violation of 15 U.S.C. §1641(g) and thus cannot state a claim upon which relief may be granted. I. Plaintiffs’ Twelfth Cause of Action For Quasi Contract Fails.

See Complaint. Accordingly they cannot show any damages stemming from purported violation of 15 U.S.C. §1641(g) and thus cannot state a claim upon which relief may be granted. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 4 Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint on November 21, 2016.