IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
April 11, 2013
IN RE: WACHOVIA CORP. "PICK-A- PAYMENT" MORTGAGE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge
ORDER CLARIFYING REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
On April 5, 2013, Defendant filed a motion seeking clarification of this Court's Order of 17 April 3, 2013, which refers to Magistrate Judge Grewal the following issue: 18 whether the figures provided by Defendant with respect to the number of loan modification applications requested by class members, the number of such 19 applications actually mailed to class members, and the outcomes of those applications, are sufficiently reliable that this Court should continue with the three- 20 step process outlined at the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction.
Order of April 3, 2013 at 2, ECF No. 432. Defendant asserts that "borrower-level data -- not 22 application-level data -- is the key" to determining Defendant's compliance with the settlement 23 agreement. Def.'s Mot. for Clarif. at 2, ECF No. 441. Some of Michal Dolan's statements refer to 24 per-borrower data rather than per-application data. Defendant seeks clarification whether the Court 25 wishes to have Judge Grewal assess the reliability of its per-application data or per-borrower data. 26
As the Court understands it, Defendant's quarterly summary reports, quarterly denial reports, 27 and quarterly fall-out reports are based upon per-application data rather than per-borrower data. 28 Additionally, one of Movants' contentions is that Defendant's representatives declined to mail applications to some class members who requested them. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it 2 must evaluate per-application data in order to determine whether Defendant is in compliance with 3 the settlement agreement. Defendant is free to provide additional data demonstrating that multiple 4 applications were requested and/or submitted by the same class member, and to make the argument 5 that each class member is entitled to full consideration of only one application. However, in light of 6 Movants' contention that thousands of loan modification applications are unaccounted for, the Court 7 must understand what happened to each application. 8
In the event that the Court requires per-application data, Defendant requests additional time 9 to collect such data. Movants object to Defendant's request, arguing that Defendant has had ample 10 time to make a sufficient record. The Court leaves it to Judge Grewal to determine an appropriate 11 briefing schedule with respect to the issue the Court has referred to him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.