2:12-cv-12589-GER-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 11/09/12 Pg 1 of 7

Pg ID 193

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION HELEN E. PHELPS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONS STAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. ______________________________________/ ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan on November 9, 2012 Case No. 12-12589 Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen Chief Judge, United States District Court Plaintiff Helen E. Phelps commenced this action in state court in May of 2012, asserting quiet title and other state-law claims arising from the foreclosure sale of a home located in Lathrup Village, Michigan.1 Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC mistakenly identified in Plaintiffs complaint as Nations Star Mortgage LLC removed the case to this Court on June 14, 2012, citing the diverse citizenship of the parties. In a motion filed on July 13, 2012, Defendant seeks the dismissal of Plaintiffs

As Defendant points out in its pending motion to dismiss, this home was not owned by Plaintiff, but instead was purchased by Mary Elizabeth Lea, who evidently is Plaintiffs mother.

2:12-cv-12589-GER-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 11/09/12 Pg 2 of 7

Pg ID 194

complaint on a number of grounds. Plaintiff has not yet responded to Defendants motion, and the 21-day period for doing so has long since expired. See Local Rule 7.1(e)(1)(B), Eastern District of Michigan. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would grant Plaintiff a limited additional time period within which to file a response to Defendants motion, with the caution that this motion would otherwise be granted as unopposed. For a number of reasons, however, the Court finds that a departure from this usual practice is warranted here. Since the beginning of 2012, Plaintiffs counsel in this case, Emmett Greenwood, has filed dozens of mortgage foreclosure suits that have been removed to federal courts in this District. See Saroki v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 12-13961, slip op. at 1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2012) (Duggan, J.) (listing a representative sample of the cases filed by Mr. Greenwood and removed to courts in this District since the beginning of the year). Each of these cases features an identical cookie-cutter complaint, Saroki, slip op. at 2, with Mr. Greenwood not even taking the trouble to correct the numerous grammatical and typographical errors in this one-size-fits-all pleading, (see, e.g., Complaint at 27 (referring to a Michigan statute that helps protect homeowners form [sic] foreclosure); id. at 25 (prayer for relief featuring paragraphs A, B, C, D, and A [sic])), nor to ensure that he accurately refers to the number and gender of the parties, (see, e.g., id. at 5, 13-15, 17-19 (referring to the Defendants in this single-defendant suit); id. at 13 (citing action allegedly taken by the Defendants [sic] that preclude[d] the Plaintiff from . . . keep[ing] possession of his [sic] home)). 2

2:12-cv-12589-GER-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 11/09/12 Pg 3 of 7

Pg ID 195

After this inauspicious start to these assembly-line suits, Mr. Greenwoods performance typically does not improve during the course of the litigation. In most of his cases before this Court (and again in the present suit), Mr. Greenwood has failed to timely respond to a motion to dismiss the complaint, and instead has acted only when ordered to do so. See, e.g., Behnam v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, No. 12-12303 (July 20, 2012 order directing the plaintiff to respond to a motion to dismiss); McCraney v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 12-11082 (May 11, 2012 order directing the plaintiff to respond to a motion to dismiss). Then, in ostensible compliance with these orders, Mr. Greenwood has filed response briefs that are word-for-word identical from one case to the next, without any attempt to tailor his arguments to the facts and allegations of a particular suit or a clients specific circumstances.2 These lackadaisical efforts have ill served the interests of Mr. Greenwoods clients so far as the Court is aware, Mr. Greenwoods canned response brief has yet to enjoy any success in staving off dismissal of his cookiecutter complaint. See, e.g., Behnam, No. 12-12303, slip op. at 6-7 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2012) (Rosen, C.J.) (granting motion to dismiss); McCraney, No. 12-11082, slip op. at 7 (E.D. Mich. July 27, 2012) (Rosen, C.J.) (granting motion to dismiss); Saroki, No. 12-

Again, Mr. Greenwood makes no effort to proofread or refine this response brief with each successive filing, but merely resubmits it with the very same odd formatting, lack of page numbers, and grammatical and typographical errors. (See, e.g., McCraney, No. 12-11082, Plaintiffs Response Br. at 2 (stating that one of the elements of a claim of unjust enrichment is the [r]eceipt of a benefit by the Defendant form [sic] the Plaintiff); id. at 3 (In the case at bar Defendants [sic] mislead [sic] Plaintiffs [sic] into believing that they [sic] would . . . obtain a Loan Modification . . . .); id. at 1, 4 (misidentifying court decisions in Oerton [sic] v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and Untied [sic] States Fid & Guar Co v Black).)

2:12-cv-12589-GER-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 11/09/12 Pg 4 of 7

Pg ID 196

13961, slip op. at 12 (Duggan, J.) (granting motion to dismiss); Kopko v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 12-13941, slip op. at 11-12 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 23, 2012) (Duggan, J.) (granting motion to dismiss); Sylvester v. Fannie Mae, No. 12-13186, slip op. at 8 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 3, 2012) (Edmunds, J.) (granting motion to dismiss). Against this backdrop, it would be a waste of the Courts time and limited resources to simply instruct Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants pending motion in this case, because Mr. Greenwood would almost certainly react by submitting his customary one-size-fits-all response brief that would (i) fail to incorporate, or even touch upon, the facts and allegations of this particular case, and (ii) present arguments that have proven uniformly ineffective in saving his clients claims from dismissal. Given Mr. Greenwoods ample and unwavering track record, the Courts usual order to respond would be tantamount to an invitation for Mr. Greenwood to violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, which dictates that an attorneys submissions must (i) put forward claims, defenses, and other legal contentions [that] are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), and (ii) offer factual contentions [that] have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). Simply stated, the Court sees no reason to anticipate that a response filed by Mr. Greenwood will meet these standards, nor is it likely to provide any meaningful assistance in the Courts resolution of Defendants motion. 4

2:12-cv-12589-GER-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 11/09/12 Pg 5 of 7

Pg ID 197

Accordingly, the Court will permit Mr. Greenwood to file a response on Plaintiffs behalf only if this response (i) actually addresses the specific contentions advanced in Defendants motion to dismiss, (ii) properly acknowledges and endeavors to distinguish the sizable body of case law in this District noting the various defects in the claims asserted in Mr. Greenwoods cookie-cutter complaint, and (iii) draws the Courts attention to particular facts and allegations, whether set forth in Plaintiffs existing complaint or that could be pled in good faith in an amended complaint, that would suffice to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965, 1974 (2007). Any such response brief filed by Mr. Greenwood will be carefully examined by the Court to ensure that it meets the above-cited standards of Rule 11(b), and any failure to comply with these requirements will subject Mr. Greenwood to the full panoply of sanctions authorized under Rule 11(c)(4). Alternatively, if such a response brief cannot be filed, Mr. Greenwood should candidly and thoroughly address this matter with his client and, as appropriate, seek Defendants agreement to the voluntary dismissal of this suit. It is time, simply stated, for Mr. Greenwood to bring his shoddy and unprofessional practices to an end. Mr. Greenwood has not only done a disservice to his clients, but he has made it more difficult for homeowners with potentially meritorious foreclosure challenges to rise above Mr. Greenwoods docket-clogging tactics and ensure that their claims receive appropriate judicial attention and resources. In this and the other 5

2:12-cv-12589-GER-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 11/09/12 Pg 6 of 7

Pg ID 198

cases on its docket in which Mr. Greenwood has filed his identical, cookie-cutter complaints, this Court fully intends to ensure that the plaintiffs receive proper and competent representation, as opposed to boilerplate legal services, and that no further judicial resources are devoted to matters that have been thoroughly addressed and resolved by this Court and others in this District in dozens of prior suits brought by Mr. Greenwood during the past year. For these reasons, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff and her counsel shall either (i) file and serve a brief in response to Defendants pending motion to dismiss that comports with the standards set forth in this order, (ii) file and serve a written status report advising the Court of Plaintiffs specific plans to promptly address the deficiencies in her existing legal representation, so that she may ensure to the Court that any viable claims in this case are

2:12-cv-12589-GER-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 11/09/12 Pg 7 of 7

Pg ID 199

being properly and vigorously pursued by competent counsel, or (iii) submit a proposed stipulated order to voluntarily dismiss this suit. In the event that Plaintiff and her counsel fail to meet this deadline, the Court will grant Defendants motion as unopposed and dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice. SO ORDERED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen Chief Judge, United States District Court Dated: November 9, 2012 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on November 9, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Shawntel Jackson for Ruth A. Gunther Case Manager