Goff v. Caliber Home Loans
| Decision Date | 21 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-20-2038 |
| Parties | SHANTRELL GOFF, Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
In this debt collection case, plaintiff Shantrell Goff filed a "Class Action Complaint & Request for Jury Trial" in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County against defendant Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ("Caliber"). ECF 1-2 at 2 (the "Complaint"). Caliber timely removed the suit to federal court. See ECF 1 (the "Notice of Removal" or "Notice").1
The Complaint contains three counts, each founded on Maryland law. Count I, lodged on behalf of plaintiff and a putative class, alleges that Caliber, a mortgage servicer, collected "unlawful convenience fees," in violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA"), Md. Code , § 14-201 et seq. of the Commercial Law Article ("C.L."), as well as the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), C.L. §§ 13-101 et seq. ECF 1-2 at ¶¶ 63-77. Count II, also lodged on behalf of plaintiff and a putative class, alleges that Caliber assessed unlawful convenience fees, in violation of C.L. § 12-105(d) ("Maryland Usury Statute" or "Usury Statute"). Id. ¶¶ 78-84. Count III, lodged by plaintiff in her individual capacity,asserts other violations of the MCPA, C.L. §§ 13-101 et seq. Count Three "does not involve or concern the disputed convenience fees." Id. ¶ 85.
The Notice of Removal asserts subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), Pub.L. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (). As to CAFA, the Notice invokes 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453. ECF 1 at 1, 3, 5.
Ms. Goff has moved to remand (ECF 11), supported by a memorandum. ECF 11-1 ().2 Plaintiff claims that "Caliber has failed to carry its burden" to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 11 at 1. In particular, plaintiff contends that Caliber has not shown that the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied for either diversity jurisdiction or CAFA. ECF 11-1 at 11-16. In the alternative, plaintiff filed a separate motion to request the opportunity to conduct "limited jurisdictional discovery" if the Court determines that the Notice sufficiently alleges jurisdiction based upon CAFA. ECF 12 (the "Discovery Motion"); see ECF 11-1 at 16.
Caliber opposes both motions. Defendant filed two versions of its Opposition: a redacted version (ECF 16) and an unredacted version (ECF 17), accompanied by six exhibits. ECF 16-1 to 16-6.3 Plaintiff replied. ECF 22.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the motions.
In August 2016, Ms. Goff acquired property in Clinton, Maryland, with the aid of a loan from Caliber. ECF 1-2, ¶¶ 9, 16. Caliber "is a collector and a licensed mortgage servicer in the State of Maryland." Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges that Caliber "voluntarily elected to arrange and service" her loan. Id. ¶ 17.
With respect to so-called "convenience fees," plaintiff alleges the following, id. ¶¶ 19-20:
Caliber allegedly "imposed and collected" convenience fees from Ms. Goff on twelve dates between July 16, 2018 and July 19, 2019. Id. ¶ 20. Ms. Goff characterizes the convenience fees as follows, id. ¶ 2.b:
[A]n unlawful profit center imposed and collected by Caliber and [] not simply pass-through costs to Goff and the putative class members. Rather, they represent materially excessive sums over Caliber's actual costs to accept a fee by electronic means over the phone or over the Internet. Specifically, Caliber's actual costs to its various vendors who facilitate the telephonic and electronic payments charge pennies for the transaction, but Caliber imposes fees ranging from 10 to 50 times more than its actual costs.
Other factual allegations in the Complaint concern Ms. Goff's interactions with Caliber regarding her loan payments. See id. ¶¶ 22-46. At this juncture, it is not necessary to include a full recitation of these factual allegations. But, some background is useful to understand the dispute.
Plaintiff alleges that in 2019 she "became aware that she would have a reduction of income and was in imminent default." Id. ¶ 22. She contacted Caliber by phone "on or about June 20, 2019 and asked Caliber if she could enter into an agreement with it to reduce and defer the sums due on" her loan. Id. In response, "Caliber's personnel unfairly claimed . . . that [Ms. Goff] could not be considered for loss mitigation or a loan modification based upon her imminent default but that she had to be in actual default." Id.
On or about July 2, 2019, plaintiff defaulted on her loan obligation. Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff asserts that, in reliance on the information she received on June 20, 2019, she submitted a "facially complete loss mitigation which Caliber acknowledged in writing . . . ." Id. Thereafter, "Caliber's representatives contact[ed] Ms. Goff from time to time . . . to request additional information." Id. ¶ 25. According to plaintiff, some of those requests "were not actually relevant or material to [her] application." Id. ¶ 26; see id. ¶ 25.
On October 28, 2019, Caliber sent plaintiff a "form denial letter" that "claimed that Ms. Goff did not provide . . . all of the documents needed to support her . . . loss mitigation application." Id. ¶ 27. According to plaintiff, the letter "concealed . . . that she was entitled to appeal Caliber's denial of her . . . loss mitigation application pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(h) and [she] did not learn she had any such right to appeal until February 2020." Id.
Between November 2019 and March 2020, Ms. Goff engaged in similar exchanges with Caliber. See id. ¶¶ 30-34, 38-39. That is, according to plaintiff, Caliber twice notified plaintiff of"loss mitigation options"; plaintiff attempted to pursue such options by submitting relevant paperwork; and then defendant notified plaintiff that she was ineligible for assistance. See id. ¶¶ 30-34, 38-39. On April 24, 2020, plaintiff appealed the third denial of assistance, which Caliber denied the following month. Id. ¶¶ 40-42.
Plaintiff claims that defendant "wrongfully and prematurely steered her . . . toward foreclosure while she . . . [was] seeking to pursue loss mitigation alternatives to avoid foreclosure." Id. ¶ 3. Ms. Goff alleges that defendant began pursuing foreclosure on the mortgaged property in November 2019. See id. ¶¶ 29, 33, 35.
In Count I of the Complaint, Ms. Goff asserts violations of the MCDCA and the MCPA. She alleges that Caliber's imposition and collection of "unlawful convenience fees for accepting payments by telephone and/or [over] the Internet" violated the MCDCA, §§ 14-202(8), 14-202(11), and constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices, in violation of the MCPA. §§ C.L. 13-301(1)(3), 13-303(4)(5); see ECF 1-2, ¶¶ 66-69, 74.5
The claim is lodged on behalf of the putative "MCDCA Class" as well as in plaintiff's individual capacity. See id. ¶¶ 63, 69. The Complaint defines the putative "MCDCA Class" as follows, id. ¶ 47(b):
All individuals in Maryland who since October 1, 2018 (i) paid a "convenience fee," (ii) collected in whole or in part by Caliber, (iii) in order to make a payment on a residential mortgage debt, and (iv) where the term "convenience fee" was not specifically enumerated in the original agreement creating such debt.
In Count II, Ms. Goff asserts violations of the Maryland Usury Statute on behalf of the "Usury Convenience Fee Class" (alternatively, the "Usury Class") as well as in her individual capacity. Relevant here, plaintiff alleges that Caliber imposed "fees related to a borrower's partial or full payment" on a loan, in violation of C.L. § 12-105(d). Id. ¶¶ 79-82. The Complaint defines the Usury Class as follows, id. ¶ 47(a):
Those persons in the State of Maryland for whom for whom (i) Caliber has acted as a maker of a mortgage loan related to a secured, mortgage loan at any time or a mortgage servicer of a mortgage loan owner related to a secured, mortgage since January 1, 2019; (ii) where Caliber charged their mortgage loan accounts with convenience fees for it accepting whole or partial payments; and (iii) the mortgage loan accounts had not been satisfied more than six months before the commencement of this action.
According to the Complaint, the MCDCA Class and the Usury Class each comprise more than 100 persons who either received mortgages from or had their mortgages serviced by Caliber, as shown by public records of "complaints . . . filed against Caliber." Id. ¶ 52. Ms. Goff asks to be named the class representative for the MCDCA Class and the Usury Class. Id. at 30.
Count III asserts an individual claim under the MCPA. In brief, Ms. Goff alleges that Caliber's various "acts and omissions" regarding "Ms. Goff's efforts to mitigate and avoid the negative consequences of foreclosure" constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices, in violation of C.L. § 13-301(1)(3) and § 13-303(4)(5). Id. ¶ 90; see id. ¶¶ 87-91.
The Complaint's "Prayer for Relief" specifies the damages plaintiff seeks. For Count One, Ms. Goff requests actual damages and "reasonable attorney fees . . . in a total sum in excess of $75,000 (on a[n] aggregated basis for the Plaintiff and the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial