Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RICO JPMorgan Chase Home Finance
RICO JPMorgan Chase Home Finance
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
1
Plaintiffs LINDA PATRICIA ZIMMERMAN, individually; VELDORA ARTHUR,
HOBSON, individually and jointly; JEAN IMMESBERGER, individually and jointly with
SOLANGE MCINTYRE individually and jointly with LEON MCINTYRE, individually and
jointly; GREGORY MISSMAN, individually and jointly with NINA MISSMAN, individually
and jointly; FRANK RAPP, individually and jointly with SUSAN NICHTER, individually
individually and jointly; and LAWRENCE WALSH, individually and jointly with MELANIE
WALSH, individually and jointly, sue Defendants JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC for Fraud, Violations of the Florida Civil Remedies for
Criminal Practices Act (Florida RICO Act) and for other relief and demand trial by jury,
and state:
2
I. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Parties
1. This is an action for damages which exceed the jurisdictional limit of this Court
exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs, which damages are recoverable under
the claims set forth herein including the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices
Act (Florida RICO Act), and which damages have been suffered by the Plaintiffs due to
the actions and conduct of the Defendants as set forth hereinbelow; for temporary and
permanent injunctive relief on a nationwide basis; and for other relief, and for trial by
CHASE BANK N.A. maintains numerous offices for the conduct of regular and
continuous business within the State of Florida including Palm Beach County, Florida,
and as numerous of the acts set forth herein were committed by CHASE HOME
FINANCE LLC during the time that it was registered to do business in Florida.
3. Venue of this action is proper in this Court as applicable Florida law provides
that if venue is proper as to any one Defendant in multi-Defendant litigation that venue
B. Parties
3
6. Plaintiff MAGDALENA APOSTOLOVA, individually is a resident of the state of
California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity
who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff
California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity
California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity
California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity
the State of California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint
13. Plaintiff LOUIS CORTI, individually is a resident of the State of New York
4
14. Plaintiff RENA E. JOHNSTON-FARRINGTON is an authorized agent of the
Farrington Family Trust who resides in the State of California and is over the age of
eighteen (18).
Jersey who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with
18. Plaintiff JANE HOBSON individually is a resident of the State of New Jersey
who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff
Jersey who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with
New Jersey who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity
5
22. Plaintiff SOLANGE MCINTYRE, individually is a resident of the State of
Washington who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity
Washington who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity
California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity
who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff
Massachusetts and is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint
Massachusetts and is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint
6
30. Plaintiff THERESA M. SCHOENBART, individually is a resident of the State
Commonwealth of Massachusetts who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a
Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff LOUISA H. STARKEY, who is his wife.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a
husband.
Wisconsin who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity
Wisconsin who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity
36. Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (hereafter “JPM”) is and was at
all times material hereto a foreign (non-Florida incorporated) corporation which engaged
in a regular and systematic course of conduct in Florida including Palm Beach County,
Florida and the other jurisdictions identified herein, which conduct included but was and
is not limited to false claims of the acquisition of mortgage loans relating to real
7
proceedings based on false and fraudulent misrepresentations; the fraudulent
collection, through one or more agents including but not limited to Defendant CHASE
mortgage loans through false and fraudulent misrepresentations; and the perpetration of
frauds upon the Courts of the United States, including this Court, through false and
fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the filing of foreclosure actions and the
37. Defendant CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC (hereafter “CHF”) is and was at all
a regular and systematic course of conduct in Florida including Palm Beach County,
Florida and the other jurisdictions identified herein, which conduct included but was and
is not limited to false claims of the acquisition of mortgage loans relating to real
false and fraudulent misrepresentations; and the perpetration of frauds upon the Courts
of the United States through false and fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with
the filing of foreclosure actions and the prosecution of non-judicial foreclosure actions,
which conduct, in the aggregate and in the manner executed, constituted a pattern of
criminal activity.
38. The actions and course of conduct of the Defendants were executed, as to
8
documents filed in courts, public records, and through the mails); with the same motive
(to institute fraudulent foreclosure proceedings) and the same intended class of victims
(owners of real property) and the same intended consequences (wrongfully foreclosing
was executed on a national scale throughout the United States through the institution of
fraudulent foreclosure actions and regular and systematic violations of foreclosure laws
40. In “judicial” foreclosure states, the foreclosing party initiates the foreclosure
process by the filing of a civil action for foreclosure, which normally consists of a
Summons and Complaint. The Complaint may contain attachments, but all judicial
states require that the foreclosing party plead and prove that it is the holder or person
entitled to enforce the Note which is secured by the Mortgage in order to seek the
remedy of foreclosure.
41. Defendants JPM and CHF were thus required, pursuant to applicable law
and rules of court, to plead, in good faith, and prove, by the requisite evidentiary
the judicial states of Florida, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin,
which are the states where the Zimmerman (FL), Arthur (FL), Hobson (NJ),
9
Immesberger (NJ), Corti (NY), Rapp (MA), Starkey (MA), and Walsh (WI) Plaintiffs
reside.
is termed a Deed of Trust (“DOT”) which vests title to the real property encumbered by
the DOT in a “trustee” (usually the title company at closing). As title companies do not
normally institute or further the foreclosure process, the original “trustee” is substituted
whereby the party seeking to foreclose files a series of documents in the public records
Assignment of the DOT to the foreclosing party, copies of which are provided to the
proceeding is required to prove that it is the holder or person entitled to enforce the
45. Defendants JPM and CHF were thus legally obligated to accurately and
truthfully set forth, in documents filed in the public records, and to prove, for purposes of
states of California, Tennessee, and Washington, which are the states where the
Apostolova (CA), Milyakov (CA), Arterberry (CA), Braxton (CA), Congress (CA),
Farrington (CA), Gordon (TN), Gutierrez (CA), Lieberman (CA), McIntyre (WA),
10
Missman (CA), Renard (CA), Schipper (CA), Schoenbart (CA), and Scott (CA) Plaintiffs
reside.
46. Prior to September 25, 2008, non-party Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter
“WaMu”) was a banking institution which, among other things, originated mortgage
loans throughout the United States, and originated mortgage loans of the Plaintiffs
herein.
47. On or about September 25, 2008, WaMu “failed” and was subjected to
48. On the same day, that being September 25, 2008, the FDIC sold defined
“assets” of WaMu to Defendant JPM which were set forth within a Purchase &
49. Defendant JPM has admitted, in filings by its counsel in the Federal matter of
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
and JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-1656 (RMC)
that:
“Under the plain terms of that agreement [the P&A], JPMC (Defendant JPM herein]
did not become WMB’s [WaMu] successor in interest. Since its closure, the FDIC as
receiver has controlled WMB.”
[emphasis in original]
50. Despite this record admission which is binding upon Defendant JPM,
Defendant JPM, both directly and indirectly through its alleged “servicer (that being
Defendant CHF) has instituted foreclosure proceedings throughout the United States in
11
both judicial and non-judicial jurisdictions where it claims, in official court filings and
documents filed in the public records and sent to the Plaintiffs herein through the mails,
nothing more than either (a) unsworn allegation unsupported by any evidence, or (b) a
one page “Affidavit” of the FDIC which is qualified as to what the FDIC “sold” to
Defendant JPM incident to the WaMu Receivership and which “Affidavit” does not
contain, as part of said “Affidavit”, any recitation or proof that the specific loan sought to
be foreclosed was in fact sold by the FDIC to Defendant JPM or that the interest therein
Defendant JPM or its servicer, Defendant CHF, supported the allegation of “successor in
interest to Washington Mutual” with any Schedule of Assets purchased from the FDIC
showing that the specific loan sought to be foreclosed was in fact part of the alleged
“purchase of assets” by Defendant JPM from the FDIC or other proof that Defendant
JPM or Defendant CHF legally acquired the full and unencumbered interest in either the
52. In both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, Defendant JPM has
also falsely alleged, in civil foreclosure actions and in non-judicial public records filings
which have been served on the Plaintiffs herein through the mails, that non-party
vested with some interest in the mortgage, either as the “mortgagee” or that the
12
mortgage was executed “in favor of” MERS or to “secure obligations in favor of” MERS
(in judicial foreclosures), or that MERS was the “beneficiary” of the DOT or that the
DOT was executed to “secure obligations in favor of” MERS (in nonjudicial
proceedings), when Defendant JPM had actual knowledge that MERS was not and
could not be either the “mortgagee” or the “beneficiary” as (a) MERS’ own Terms and
Conditions expressly preclude the use of the MERS system to either create or transfer
beneficial interests in mortgage loans and (b) as MERS did not lend money or extend
Defendants JPM and CHF intentionally and willfully uttered, in writing throughout
foreclosure proceedings across the United States, the false and fraudulent
bogus “Assignments” of mortgages and DOTs in order to institute and further fraudulent
foreclosure proceedings in both judicial and non-judicial states, with the intent of said
Defendants being the same across all jurisdictions: to wit, the theft of real property from
wrongfully and illegally acquiring real property, Defendants JPM and CHF also willfully
and intentionally ignored and deliberately failed to comply with applicable laws and rules
pertaining to the foreclosure process, such as providing the required Certifications for
New Jersey foreclosures and complying with CA Civil Code sec. 2923.5 for California
13
foreclosures (which requires a good-faith attempt to contact the borrower to resolve
matters pertaining to the mortgage loan prior to instituting foreclosure), and in fact said
55. This pattern of filing false Declarations in California foreclosures; failing to file
the proper Certifications in New Jersey foreclosures; and failure to provide proof of legal
ownership of the full and unencumbered interest in the Note and Mortgage in Florida
and other jurisdictions is consistent with Defendant JPM’s and CHF’s pattern of falsely
misrepresenting the legal scope and effect of the FDIC “Affidavit” in both judicial and
nationwide.
56. The specific pattern of criminal activity of Defendants JPM and CHF, which
has been perpetrated upon each of the Plaintiffs herein through fraudulent practices and
the use of the mails and, in certain instances, actions involving perjury, is demonstrated
by the specific instances of conduct set forth below, which conduct was executed with
the same intent and in the same manner and means and with the same intended class
a loan which had been originated by non-party WaMu, doing so without and Assignment
14
and with no evidence that Defendant JPM legally acquired an ownership or holder
interest in the loan. The first copy of Note filed with the foreclosure Complaint contained
no endorsement; the second version of the Note contained a robo-signer stamp on the
58. As to Plaintiffs Apostolova and Milyakov: the Substitution [of Trustee] and the
Assignment [of Deed of Trust] were executed by one “Colleen Irby”, whose name
Defendant MERS and Defendant JPM. On the Substitution and NOS, MERS is
Defendant JPM to execute the Substitution. The MERS assignment of the DOT to
Defendant JPM is bogus and shows intent of fraudulent conveyance to Defendant JPM.
person who signed the document; there no agency agreement between the trustee sale
company and LSI Title Company; and no identification of who the alleged “beneficiary”
is. The Substitution, which lists WaMu as the original Beneficiary and which substitution
was by Defendant JPM, is without authority as Defendant JPM is not the “successor in
either the Note or the DOT to Defendant JPM. There was no pre-foreclosure contact as
15
61. As to Plaintiff Braxton: Robo-signing by Colleen Irby, this time for a different
company conducting the Trustee’s Sale; the Substitution by MERS is illegal; the
Assignment [of the DOT] which says “JPM as successor in interest to WaMu” is
fraudulent and thus there is a fraudulent transfer which assigns to LaSalle Bank as
Trustee for a WaMu securitization, on 02/09/09. NOS dated 03/30/11 says WaMu Bank
62. As to the Congress Plaintiffs: No Assignment of the DOT. NOS says “WaMu
as the Beneficiary”, which is fraudulent as FDIC took over WaMu in 2008; no indication
that name is being used for FDIC. No pre-foreclosure contact as required by CA Civil
purchaser of the loans and other assets of WaMu” without specific proof that this
65. As to Plaintiff Gordon: Defendant JPM accepted the mod then reneged,
although JPM had no authority to enter into loan mod negotiations ab initio.
Substitutions by known robo-signers has the “JPM as purchaser of the loans and other
16
assets of WaMu”, without any proof that this specific mortgage loan was in fact
66. As to Plaintiff Gutierrez: Defendant JPM is listed as the “contact” on the NOD
for a WaMu loan. No evidence that Defendant JPM owns the loan. No Assignment. No
paragraph 4 of the foreclosure Complaint “as purchaser of the loans and other assets of
WaMu”. No Assignment. Fraud upon the Court and fraudulent foreclosure filing.
a securitized mortgage loan trust which closed in 2005, with no evidence that the loan
was transferred properly or timely into the trust for which Defendant CHF claims to be
the “servicer”.
69. As to Plaintiff Lieberman: Defendant JPM filed NOD without authority which
Trustee for a WaMu securitization which closed in 2005, yet the NOS of 05/14/09 says
Secretary” of the Trustee sale company. NOS signed by known robo-signer Deborah
2923.5.
demand therefrom without evidence that any Chase entity owns the loan.
17
71. As to the Missman Plaintiffs: Defendant JPM is listed as the “contact” for a
loan which originated with WaMu without any evidence that Defendant JPM owns the
loan or that the loan was legally transferred to Defendant JPM. No Substitution. No pre-
Defendant JPM without evidence of ownership of the loan and where there is evidence
that the loan was (allegedly) transferred to a Deutsche Bank securitization trust.
“Assignment” of the DOT which fails to name WaMu to Defendant JPM which is listed
as the contact on the NOD without evidence that the loan was acquired by any Chase
entity.
74. As to Plaintiff Schipper: Defendant JPM is listed as the contact on the NOD;
to Wells Fargo as Trustee for Freddie Mac securitization (REMIC trust) which closed in
2005, which is fraudulent. No Substitution. Of the 4 NOS, two are “signed” by robo-
signer Deborah Brignac, who also “signed” the Assignment. No pre-foreclosure contact
75. As to Plaintiff Schoenbart: Defendant JPM is the listed contact on the NOD
(which was “signed” by Colleen Irby) which identifies WaMu loan; no Substitution and no
Assignment; two NOS, one of which signed by robo-signed Deborah Brignac. NOS also
18
Secretary” for Trustee’s sale company. No pre-foreclosure contact as required by CA
2009, the loan to a trust which closed in 2006, which is fraudulent and illegal.
Trustee for a WaMu securitization which closed in 2007; fraudulent assignment to the
80. At all times material hereto, Defendants JPM and CHF had actual knowledge
that their written statements as to alleged ownership of the Plaintiff’s mortgage loans
and the legal entitlement to demand monies from Plaintiffs and institute foreclosure
proceedings were false statements of material fact which were false when made and
81. Defendants JPM and CHF made the subject false statements with the
specific intent that Plaintiffs rely thereon and with the separate specific intent, which
separate specific intent was unknown to the Plaintiffs at the time, to defraud the
Plaintiffs.
82. Plaintiffs, not being in the mortgage lending or mortgage loan acquisition
businesses, reasonably relied upon the written statements of Defendants JPM and CHF
19
and acted thereon, including but not limited to paying monies to said Defendants when
demanded thereby.
83. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and course of conduct of
and independent tort separate and apart from any breach of any contract.
85. The deliberate and concerted actions engaged in by the Defendants as set
forth above and under the circumstances set forth above constitutes the type of fraud
for which attorneys’ fees are awarded, and as such, Plaintiffs demand the assessment
of their attorneys’ fees against the Defendants. Baya v. Central and Southern Florida
Defendants for compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other
and further relief which is just and proper under the totality of the circumstances.
87. At all times material hereto, Defendants JPM and CHF agreed, between and
among themselves and in combination with each other and various agents identified
engage in unlawful actions for a common purpose, to wit: to perpetrate a fraud upon
whereby the Defendants would obtain the use and benefit, under fraudulent pretenses,
20
of the Plaintiffs’ real property at the expense of the Plaintiffs and without compensating
the Plaintiffs therefor; to unlawfully convert the Plaintiffs’ real property and permanently
deprive the Plaintiffs thereof; and to cause all deleterious consequences of the
Defendants’ actions to be saddled upon the Plaintiffs, which consequences include but
are not limited to the loss of real property; the incurring of expenses; and the adverse
effects of claimed defaults and foreclosures placed on the Plaintiffs’ credit reports by the
Defendants.
88. Defendants agreed to engage in these unlawful actions with various agents
including but not limited to California Reconveyance Corporation and Quality Loan
jurisdictions, which Defendants and their agents being involved in the various
transactions and with the Defendants participating in each overt act in furtherance of the
conspiracy to defraud and convert, and did so in order to accomplish the objective of
defrauding Plaintiffs and misappropriating monies and real property from the Plaintiffs.
89. As a direct and proximate result of the overt, concerted, and conspiratorial
actions of the Defendants through and with their agents, Plaintiffs have suffered
constitutes a separate and distinct independent tort which is separate and apart from
91. The deliberate and concerted actions engaged in by the Defendants as set
forth above and under the circumstances set forth above constitutes the type of fraud
for which attorneys’ fees are awarded, and as such, Plaintiffs demand the assessment
21
of their attorneys’ fees against the Defendants. Baya v. Central and Southern Florida
Defendants for compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other
and further relief which is just and proper under the totality of the circumstances.
92. Plaintiffs reaffirm paragraphs 1 through 78, 87, and 88 hereinabove as if set
93. This is an action for violations of the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal
Practices Act, Fla.Stat. sec. 772.101 et seq., also known as the Florida RICO Act.
94. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.104 provides that any person who has been injured by
reason of the provisions of sec. 772.103 shall have a [civil] cause of action for threefold
actual damages and also for reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs through the trial
95. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103 provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for any
person:
22
(3) employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to
conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such
enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity;
96. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.102(1)(a) defines “criminal activity” as, in pertinent part,
defraud homeowners on a nationalized level whereby the Defendants, through the use
of the mails, the public records, and the Courts, intentionally devised false and
fraudulent documents relating to the claimed and alleged ownership and “holder” status
of mortgage loans when the Defendants had actual knowledge that they had no such
status, doing so through perjured documents and material misrepresentations with the
98. As set forth above, the Plaintiffs relied upon the Defendants’ representations
(as any reasonably and similarly-situated homeowner would), which directly and
99. The actions of the Defendants were specifically directed to each of the
23
100. In order to accomplish their objective, Defendants developed and were part
of an enterprise, which consisted of the Defendants and their agents including but not
limited to various law Firms and “Trustee Sale” companies, which worked together and
in concert at the direction of the Defendants for the specific purpose of furthering the
pattern of criminal activity set forth herein, including notary fraud and a regular pattern
and practice of filing false and perjured documents in the public records to institute and
further fraudulent foreclosures and steal residential real property from its owners.
101. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103(3) defines “enterprise” as, inter alia, any individual,
corporation, or other legal entity or group of individuals associated in fact although not a
legal entity.
at least two incidents of criminal activity that have the same or similar intents, results,
distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents and that the last of such
incidents occurred within 5 years after a prior incident of criminal activity. As set forth
hereinbelow, the pattern of criminal activity engaged in by the Defendants did not arise
out of a single contract or transaction, and in fact involved numerous contracts and
transactions which spread across the United States, including those states identified
herein.
103. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103(5) defines “real property” and includes within this
definition any direct or indirect interest therein, including an interest in a mortgage upon
real property.
24
104. As set forth hereinbelow, the Defendants, through their predicate acts and
pattern of criminal activity which the Defendants engaged in throughout the United
States on a regular and continuous basis and with a defined and intentional purpose,
conducted a nationalized fraud, the victims of which were the American homeowner
105. As set forth hereinabove and further hereinbelow, Defendant JPM, as the
controlling RICO and controlling enterprise Defendant, together with the active aid,
assistance, and agreement of additional RICO and enterprise Defendant CHF and their
criminal intent received proceeds both directly and indirectly from a pattern of criminal
activity through theft, fraudulent practices, false pretenses, fraud, and perjury in the
acquisition of title to and claimed rights, interest, and equity in real property.
106. As further set forth herein, the RICO Defendants who were employed by
and associated with the enterprise conducted and participated in such enterprise
through a pattern of criminal activity including but not limited to a nationalized pattern of
filing false and perjured documents in the public records; instituting false and fraudulent
foreclosure proceedings; and deliberately ignoring and failing to comply with applicable
foreclosure laws.
107. As set forth hereinabove and hereinbelow, the RICO Defendants also
activity at the expense of the Plaintiffs and for their own benefit.
25
109. The RICO Defendants engaged in their pattern of criminal activity through
and arising out of a series of transactions and acts in at least eight separate states
identified above (including Florida), which transactions and acts included the fraudulent
110. As such, the RICO Defendants have violated Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103(1), (2),
(a) having the same intent (that being to obtain, through a pattern of
theft, fraud, fraudulent activity, and false pretenses, monies and
real property from innocent and unknowing homeowners and
rightfully the property thereof);
(b) having the same results (that being the wrongful foreclosure of the
Plaintiffs’ real property to further the enterprise of the RICO
Defendants);
(c) having the same victims (homeowners with mortgage loans); and
(d) having the same methods of commission (that being theft, fraud,
false pretenses, perjury, and mail fraud).
111. The actions of the RICO Defendants are interrelated by the distinguishing
characteristic of the fact that RICO Defendant JPM was a related person as to all of the
RICO Defendants by the fact that RICO Defendant CHF and their respective agents
were substantially under the direction, ownership, or control, either directly or indirectly,
112. As set forth above, Plaintiffs have been injured and have suffered significant
772.103.
26
113. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to demand and do demand threefold actual
damages against the RICO Defendants in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs.
Defendants for compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other
and further relief which is just and proper under the totality of the circumstances.
114. Plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1 through 78, 87, 88, 97-100,
115. This is an action for temporary and permanent injunctive relief to cease and
injunctive relief during the pendency of this litigation and, upon prevailing on the merits,
116. Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to seek temporary and permanent injunctive
relief as their interest in monies and real property is being jeopardized by the actions of
the Defendants through their concerted and well-entrenched pattern of criminal activity
custody, and control of certain monies and real property of the Plaintiffs.
117. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the harm arising out of
the loss of their unique residential real property caused by the actions and conduct of
the Defendants as set forth and identified hereinabove, and no adequate remedy at law
27
118. Unless temporary and permanent injunctive relief is immediately granted,
Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm including the loss of their unique residential real
property.
119. There is no harm to the Defendants with the granting of this relief, as the
Defendants never legally or lawfully acquired any interest in any of the promissory
Notes or mortgage instruments related to the Plaintiffs’ residential real property, and
allegedly “acquired” such interests solely through false, fraudulent, and criminal means.
120. Denial of the requested relief would be tantamount for rewarding the RICO
121. Any alleged harm to the Defendants, which consist of one of the largest
investment banks in the world and its related servicing entity, with the granting of this
relief is greatly and substantially outweighed by the actual and irreparable harm to
Plaintiffs in the event that the relief requested herein is not granted.
122. The granting of the relief requested herein is in the public interest, as the
consuming public of homeowners, including the Plaintiffs, has been, is being, and will
123. Thus and under the totality of the circumstances, no bond should be
required as a prerequisite to the granting of the relief requested herein as there are no
costs or other damages which could be contemplated on the part of the Defendants with
the granting of the relief requested herein for which a bond would otherwise be
necessary.
124. At least one other court in the United States which has been confronted
28
level has previously issued an order staying all foreclosures instituted or prosecuted by
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that this Court immediately grant the relief
requested herein and immediately enter an Order for Temporary Injunctive Relief which
commands that all foreclosure activity being engaged in by the Defendants nationwide
be immediately enjoined for the pendency of this litigation through trial and any
appeal(s), and that permanent injunctive forever barring the Defendants from engaging
Plaintiffs demand trial by jury of all matters so triable as a matter of right pursuant
address below.
W. J. Barnes, P.A.
California office: Counsel for Plaintiffs
1515 North Federal Highway Suite 300
2901 West Coast Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Suite 350 Tel: (561) 864-1067
Newport Beach, California 92663 Fax: (949) 270-7414
Tel: (949) 270-7413 e-mail: jeff@wjbarneslaw.com
Fax: (949) 270-7414
By: _________________________
Jeff Barnes, Esq. FBN 746479
29