Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Aurora CLASS ACTION Complaint For Deceptive "Workout Agreements"

    Diunggah oleh

    Foreclosure Fraud
    2K tayangan46 halaman
    See 4closureFraud.org for more details...

    Judul Asli

    Aurora CLASS ACTION Complaint for Deceptive “Workout Agreements”

    Hak Cipta

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Format Tersedia

    PDF atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    See 4closureFraud.org for more details...

    Hak Cipta:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    2K tayangan46 halaman

    Aurora CLASS ACTION Complaint For Deceptive "Workout Agreements"

    Diunggah oleh

    Foreclosure Fraud
    See 4closureFraud.org for more details...

    Hak Cipta:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 46
    SHANA E. SCARLETT (217895) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Stte 202 Berkeley, CA. 94710 ‘Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 shanasighbsslaw.com STEVE W. BERMAN THOMAS E, LOESER (202724) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Fighth Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 sleve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class [Aduitional Counsel on Signature Page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION MAUDER and ALICE CHAO: DEOGENESO and GLORINA PALUGOD, on ‘behalf of themselves ad all others similarly situated, No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. 1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§ 1688, ET SEQ. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENATION Plaintts, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, 4. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED. COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH Defendant AND FAIR DEALING 5. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT [CAL BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, ET SEQ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, ML wv, VI vil vit. 1% ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION, JURISDICTION, PARTIES. CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF RES FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Foreclosure Criss B, Aurora Loan Services. Cairn Law on Reseission of Contes D. Aurora Benefits Mos from Extracting Workout Payments from Borrowers Jats Ten Forest at Oppsed to Geialy Oe Lon E, _ Plains" Workout Agreement. 1. Mauder and Alice Chao 2 Beogeneso and Glorina Palugod.. CLASS ALLEGATIONS. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF PRAYER FORRELIEF... JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 0 B 13 21 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1, Inthe fice ofthe esalating foreclosure isis in the United States and especialy in California, Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC (“Aurora”) has further vitimized those serugling to keep their homes by offering and inducing customers into illusory “Workout Agreements,” which purport to offer hope of an opportunity to cure loan dealt, but in ruth and fact are merely a ruse trough which Aurora dupes homeowners nto paying it ens of thousands of dollars immediately before losing ther homes to foreclosures. On information and belt, Aurora has reaped 2. Plaintfs and the Class entered into “Workout Agreements” with Aurora in which it profits from these actions exceeding $100 million. Plaintiffs promised to pay and paid tens of thousands of dollars on the seeming return promise of review for loan modi jon andl an opportunity to cue ther default at he end ofa review period ‘But Aurora's promises in return were empty it foreclosed on Paints’ and the Clas members? homes without any notice tha loan modifications were denied and without allowing borrowers access to any “cure method” despite its promises in the Workout Agreement todo so. As ues, ‘Aurora fraudulently intuced its customers into entering the Workout Agreements and made no legally binding promises to Plaintifs and the Clas; Plaintfs and te Class hereby tender back to Aurora any benefits they received under the Workout Agrocments and ate entitled t rescind. In ‘hat alternative, Plains allege hat Aurora breached its duty of goo faith an fir dating when it foreclosed on Plains’ homes without fist giving (1) notie that modification hal been rejected; and (2) an opportunity to cure the deal. 3. Plaintfsentered into Workout Agreements with Aurora, agreeing to large monthly payments over tee or sx months to halt forelosue inthe hopes of obtaining a cure method for ‘he default of tir las, including possibly lan modifieation. After the initial trm ofthe Workout Agreements, Aurora often asked for continued monthly payments telling customers that, ‘i was still reviewing for possible modification, 4. Inretum for Plains” promises to make monthly payments, Aurota promised to ia the end of which Plaintiffs would waive legal rights forthe duration ofthe Workout Agreemes be entitled to “eure” their loan deficiency through: (1) reinstatement (i.e. bring the loan current); (2) payoff (i. refinancing with another lender to pay off the Aurortscrviced loan (@) modification atthe discretion of Aurora; or (4) another workout “option” atthe diseretion of Aurora, 5. The Werkout Agreements signed by Plains and members of the putative Class ‘were sham. They wet illusory because Aurora made no legally binding promises in exchange for the bortwers' promises to make payments. The loan modifications and “other” workout ‘options were entirely st Aurora's discretion, and thus nota binding promise. ‘The options to cure by reinstatement or pay were also illusory because Auroras policy was to foreclose on properties with no noice whatsoever to borrowers. Thus, borrowers had no opportunity to reinstate or pay off their loans because they were never told that a modification or other workout plan was denied, As aresull, Plaintii’ and Class members’ consent to the Workout Agreements was fraudulently obtained and Aurora's consideration for the Workout Agreements fied rendering such agreements void ab initio and subject to rescission, 6. Havingnot received the promised benefit fom Aurora, Plantifs and the Class are coiled to rescind and obtain back from Aurora thee promised (and delivered) consideration, namely the payments hat were made to Aurora unde the Workout Agreements 7. Inthe altemative, should the Workout Agreements be deemed enforceable, Aurora thas breached its duty cf good faith and fair dealing by foreclosing on Plants properties without first providing notice tat modification had been ejected and an opportunity to cure te loan

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai