How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Lawyer
Category: Consumer Protection Law
Satisfied Customers: 118789
Experience:  Attorney experienced in commercial litigation.
10285032
Type Your Consumer Protection Law Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Requesting Law Educator, Esq. What do you think of this?

This answer was rated:

requesting Law Educator, Esq.What do you think of this?

Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking for educational purposes only.

This is okay for your objection, it does not wander and it goes directly to each point you are arguing. You need to state "Objection TO WHAT???" WHAT ARE YOU OBJECTING TO Summary Judgment so say Objection to Summary Judgment.

You need to also say the summary judgment standard of review with a case citation, (it is that there are material issues of fact in dispute, which preclude summary judgment). You then need to wrap up in your conclusion saying that summary judgment is improper because of all of these disputed material facts you have raised.

Please do not forget to leave positive feedback by clicking on the 5 stars at the top of your page, as the experts are not employees of the site and get no credit for spending time with customers unless they leave positive feedback. Thank you.

Law Educator, Esq. and 3 other Consumer Protection Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 1 month ago.
What would the standard of review be for the defendants refusal to acknowledge the NIED caused by the negligent servicing of plaintiffs loans? This is what I am objecting top.

Thank you for your reply.

The standard of review is your facts versus their facts. You are arguing your facts and opinion and they are entitled to argue their opinion.

You cannot just object to their opinions. You can object to some pleading they filed, so you are either objecting to something they filed or you have no right to file the objection you wrote up. You cannot just file things just to file them.

Customer: replied 1 month ago.
hOW IS THIS?PLAINTIFS’ SUPPLIMENTAL OBJECTION
TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

You are not entitled to a supplemental objection under federal rules. You are entitled to a pleading, objection, reply and with permission of the court a surreply. Nothing else. So if you want to pull your previous objection to the summary judgment and file an Amended Objection to Summary Judgment, you can do that, but honestly, these are most of the same arguments you are just rehashing.

Customer: replied 1 month ago.
Could I file it as an exhibit to the original objection to sum jud?

No, you cannot, it is not an exhibit.

Customer: replied 27 days ago.
Doesw this mean the judge has to rule in 21 dasys?Rule 12(f) MOTION TO STRIKE:
“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient “defense” or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act: (1) on its own; or (2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.”

No, it means that the party before responding to the pleading with an answer can respond with a motion to strike instead of an answer and they have to do so within 21 days of receiving the pleading.

Customer: replied 27 days ago.
JPMCB can respond with a motion to strike my motion to strike within days?

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, they can object to your motion to strike.

Customer: replied 26 days ago.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint at DOC. 88 plausibly stated a claim for NIED from all of the defendant’s negligent loan servicing related behavior. If there is any question to plaintiffs’ intent, then the pro se plaintiff asks the Court for permission for leave to amend his Complaint to clarify his NIED claim since plaintiff never specifically alleged NIED in his TCPA claim and neither the defendant nor the Court can attach NIED to the TCPA because it is not in the TCPA statute. Plaintiffs TCPA cause of actions states in No. 4. In Doc. 88 “That the Plaintiff did feel harassed, oppressed and abused by the Defendant's actions, not with one phone call, but hundreds if not thousands of phone calls, asking for the same information.” Nowhere does plaintiff mention emotional distress or NIED in his TCPA claim because it is separate. Furthermore, plaintiff does not attribute NIED to the TCPA in his NIED claim. So how can the defendant or the Court say that the plaintiff specifically attributed his NIED and attach it to the TCPA when he never mentioned it. Instead, the defendant and the Court presumed that that is what the plaintiff was claiming but it is not in writing. The two are separate. The dismissed defendants are not entitled to favoritism.

Thank you for your reply.

The judge can infer things from the pleadings, but if he is wrong you can file to reconsider his orders based on the incorrect inferences he made.

Customer: replied 26 days ago.
If I said this:3. That the Defendant's made hundreds, if not thousands
of phone calls to Plaintiff to engage him in telephone
conversation repeatedly, incessantly and continuously with
intent to annoy, abuse and sent mail to Plaintiff for six
years and are the cause of Plaintiffs' distress.but I meant was the partial cause of plaintiffs' distress, how should I write it?

Thank you for your reply.

You would say that it "was a significant contributing factor to the plaintiff's distress"

Customer: replied 26 days ago.
abuse and sent mail to Plaintiff for six
years and are the cause of Plaintiffs' distress.That is what I said in the complaint. How do I restate in now?And that is why the judge dismissed the other defendants because I said defendants called me when only JPMCB called me but I meant to say that all contributed to NIED by their other acts too like making me appear in court for years when had they disclosed the modified note it would have ended much earlier. Do I file a new complaint since I did not specifically say that?

No, it is too late in this matter to file a new complaint since the parties were already dismissed from the suit. It has gone on too long to try to correct this now and you can raise the issue they were improperly dismissed in your appeal when you get a final judgment on the case.

Please do not forget to leave positive feedback by clicking on the 5 stars at the top of your page, as the experts are not employees of the site and get no credit for spending time with customers unless they leave positive feedback. Thank you.

Customer: replied 26 days ago.
How is this?Plaintiffs’ second NIED cause of action at DOC. 88 plausibly stated a claim for NIED from all of the defendant’s negligent loan servicing related behavior. If there is any question to plaintiffs’ intent, then the pro se plaintiff asks the Court for permission for leave to amend his Complaint to clarify his NIED claim. Although the pros se plaintiff wrote in paragraph No. 3 “That the Defendant's made hundreds, if not thousands of phone calls to Plaintiff to engage him in telephone conversation repeatedly, incessantly and continuously with intent to annoy, abuse and sent mail to Plaintiff for six years and are the cause of Plaintiffs' distress.” Plaintiff did not mean to say the calls were the cause of all of his distress. He was quoting legal language from the internet. What plaintiff meant and should have said that the calls “were a significant contributing factor to the plaintiff's distress", and it would be reasonable to extrapolate that from the rest of plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs third TCPA cause of actions states in No. 4 in Doc. 88 “That the Plaintiff did feel harassed, oppressed and abused by the Defendant's actions, not with one phone call, but hundreds if not thousands of phone calls, asking for the same information.” Nowhere does plaintiff mention emotional distress or NIED in his TCPA claim because it is, and he intended it to be separate. Furthermore, plaintiff does not attribute NIED to the TCPA in his NIED claim because the TCPA provides statutory relief only. So how can the defendant or the Court say that the plaintiff specifically attributed his NIED and attach it to the TCPA when he did not mention it there. Instead, the defendant and the Court presumed that that is what the plaintiff was claiming. Furthermore, plaintiff, in an affidavit, affirmed that his emotional distress was also a significant contributing factor to the plaintiff's emotional distress. Plaintiff said it was the cause of his distress but he did not say specifically what distress because there were other physical and psychological stresses too. Plaintiff also stated to a witness, the VA Psychiatrist, the following: “The patient ventilates about his ongoing lawsuits against two banks for harassing him while in the process of foreclosing on his home.” Here, the plaintiff plausible states a claim for NIED from defendant’s negligent loan servicing related behavior, so it is reasonable to infer that plaintiff made a grammatical error. Plaintiff said that the calls were the cause of his distress but he did not say or intend to say that it was the “only” cause of his distress and it would be reasonable to believe that the plaintiff did not intend to mean that it was the only cause of his distress.

That is fine.

Customer: replied 23 days ago.
How would a lawyer respond to this objection?Plaintiffs motion is overly confusing and fails to properly address the legal sufficiency of JPMC's affirmative defenses. Rather, the Motion to Strike appears to be an argumentative and generalized second objection to JPMC's Motion for Summary
Judgment. For these two reasons, Plaintiffs Motion to Strike must be denied.

Thank you for your reply.

You could argue as a pro se party your pleadings are entitled to liberal interpretation by the court in the interest of justice and that you were clear in stating that no proof has been offered that you were ever part of this class action and that this argument is merely being used as a smokescreen to cover their conduct and is not factual and merely prejudicial.

Customer: replied 20 days ago.
Should I up my claim?JPMorgan Ordered to Pay More Than $4 Billion to Widow and Family
Thomas Korosec
September 26, 2017, 8:31 PM EDT September 26, 2017, 10:05 PM EDT
Outsize punitive damages awards are often reduced by courts
Bank found by jury to have mismanaged estate of Max Hopper
JPMorgan Chase & Co. was ordered by a Dallas jury to pay more than $4 billion in damages for mishandling the estate of a former American Airlines executive, but the verdict will probably be knocked down on appeal.Jo Hopper and two stepchildren won the probate court verdict over claims that JPMorgan mismanaged the administration of the estate of Max Hopper, who was described as an airline technology innovator in a statement issued by the family’s law firm.Large punitive damages verdicts like the one in the Hopper case are often scaled back because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled they can’t be disproportionate to actual damages. In this case, the jury awarded less than $5 million in actual damages.The bank said it acted in a professional manner and in good faith on Hopper’s estate and is “highly confident” the jury verdict won’t stand under Texas law.“Clearly the award far exceeds any possible interpretation of Texas tort reform statutes,” ***** *****, a spokesman for the bank, said in an emailed statement. “There has been no judgment entered by the court based on this verdict.”Max Hopper, who pioneered a reservation system for the airline, died in 2010 with assets of more than $19 million but without a will and testament, according to the statement. JPMorgan was hired as an administrator to divvy up the assets among family members.Putters, Wine“Instead of independently and impartially collecting and dividing the estate’s assets, the bank took years to release basic interests in art, home furnishings, jewelry, and notably, Mr. Hopper’s collection of 6,700 golf putters and 900 bottles of wine,” the family’s lawyers said in the statement. “Some of the interests in the assets were not released for more than five years.”"The nation’s largest bank horribly mistreated me and this verdict provides protection to others from being mistreated by banks that think they’re too powerful to be held accountable," Jo Hopper said in the statement.The court’s verdict form shows jurors awarded $8 billion in punitive damages against the bank. Alan Loewinsohn, attorney for Jo Hopper, said in an interview there may be duplication of some of the damage findings. As a result, he said, the punitive damage award could end up being “somewhere between $4 billion and $8 billion.”Loewinsohn said he asked the jury to take into account the bank’s worth and asked them for $2 billion in punitive damages. “I believe they used that figure for the other parties in the case as well,” he said.Fiduciary DutyThe jury found that the bank committed fraud, breached its fiduciary duty and broke a fee agreement, according to court papers.At the lower end of that range, the jury’s award would erase almost two-thirds of the $6.6 billion profit that JPMorgan generated globally during the second quarter.And it would rank high among the largest sanctions ever levied against the bank -- somewhere between the $2.6 billion it agreed to pay in 2014 for allegedly failing to stop Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, and a $13 billion settlement it reached with government authorities in 2013 for its handling of mortgage bonds that fueled the financial crisis.The verdict form shows jurors were advised to consider factors including “the net worth of JPMorgan.” Indeed, the bank has a stock market value of about $330 billion.

Thank you for your reply.

That jury verdict has not be validated yet. Also, this has to do with a different issue than your issue, so do not get carried away yet.

Customer: replied 20 days ago.
How is this?

The preliminary statement about good things and bad things needs to go completely, it serves no purpose at all.

The top two paragraphs on P. 4 need to go, they are just saying you wrote in plain English, that is not any objection, it is derogatory to the other party.

Also, take out the argument about dismissing the other parties, it is not the pleading to now argue about that, so take it out. FOCUS ON ONLY WHAT WAS SAID IN THE OBJECTION TO MOTION TO STRIKE, nothing else.

THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT, it needs to come out, it is really almost petty (actually that whole line of argument needs to be removed as it just comes from you being pro se and not knowing that is how cases are referred to): This is an attempt to draw the Courts attention away from the true name of the case which is “Patricia Connor, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank and Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae, Defendants.” See EXHIBIT B.

The rest of your arguments are okay. Your objection should not be more than maybe 10 pages, so you are 10 pages too long because of irrelevant facts and arguments you are raising so remove them.

Customer: replied 20 days ago.
Can this work?

I told you stop the personal attacks in your pleadings, but you continue with them. Take these paragraphs out they add nothing to your pleading and contribute to making it entirely too long.

On the other hand, plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is not confusing because it is in plain English. Defendants have attended years of reading complex subjects in schools, graduated then passed the bar, so defendants must be able to discern what the simple pro se plaintiff is saying. Otherwise, how can they object and argue against plaintiffs’ points if they do not understand them? Furthermore, if not, then why do they not ask the plaintiff what he means? Which part is confusing to the defendant? What part is argumentative? Which part is generalized? Certainly the Court is not going to take defendants word for it without even giving an example. They are stalling as usual.
It certainly sounds like defendants’ objection is in itself generalized. Defendant is just throwing out blanket statements that object to nothing specific in plaintiffs Motion to Strike. But they have to say something if they are going to object. Yet, since defendants’ claim that they are confused, plaintiff will have to explain what he thinks defendants are confused about since they do not say, and plaintiff will do that below
.

I told you take this out, yet here I am spending another hour going through your pleading where you did not do anything I asked. TAKE THIS OUT:

Plaintiff objects to defendants’ attempt at truth suppression and disinformation by misstating the actual name of the Connor Class Action suit. Defendant states on page 2 of EXHIBIT A: “The affirmative defenses referred to the class action suit, Patricia Connor, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al., Case 3:10-cv-01284.”

You can say the full caption of the case is whatever and you can say that it is important because the claim of Connor was against Fannie Mae and in your case Deutsche was the other holder of the mortgage. you can say that in TWO SENTENCES and you do not need 4 paragraphs to dwell on it.

I told you cut this in half at least in length, it is entirely too long.

All this unnecessary text needs to go too:

"only, the rules for which, including succession events, are extensively covered in the prospectus on page S-30, S-44, S-54, S-55, S-57, S-60, S-105, S-110, pages 9, 34, page 50 where it says “…the trustee or any successor servicer must recognize the sub-servicer’s rights and obligations under the sub-servicing agreement”, page 54 - 56, and page 63 located at Doc. 261, Exhibit A. Connors factual allegations starts at Case 3:10-cv-01284-GPC-BGS Doc 110 Filed 05/15/14 PageID.1537 Page 4 of 16 the following:
[Connor] FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
“Plaintiff Connor's Allegations 16 13. Plaintiff Connor obtained home mortgages in the late 2005 -early 2006 time-frame for 17 her real property through Chase's home financing entity Defendant Chase Bank USA, 18 N.A. Those included loan no.(###) ###-#### 191 14. On information and belief, once the loan had closed, Chase sold Plaintiff Connor's mortgages to Fannie Mae. [the instant plaintiffs loan was sold to Deutsche as Trustee for $1 on 4/8/2008, not FNMA.]
Plaintiff Connor's loan has been owned by Fannie Mae and 21 serviced by Chase for Fannie Mae for all of the relevant time period. The Fannie Mae 22 website
8
responds to an inquiry as to whether Plaintiff Connor's loan is a Fannie Mae loan 23 in the affinitive. Plaintiff Connor was told directly by Chase employee "Lynn", 24 employee number(###) ###-#### in approximately October, 2008, that her loan was in fact owned by Fannie Mae during the relevant time period Plaintiff Connor received the calls 26 complained of herein. 271 15.
Even though Plaintiff Connor's mortgage loans were owned by Defendant Fannie Mae, 281 Chase has serviced the loan throughout the relevant time period, engaged in collection efforts and while doing so, and committed the TCPA violations while acting in such capacity for Defendant Fannie Mae. 31 16. Here Chase had direct communication with Plaintiff Connor in the commission of the TCPA violations alleged herein. However, in engaging in such violations, Chase was acting on behalf of the creditor Fannie Mae, who communicated with Plaintiff Connor only through Chase, without Fannie Mae's direct involvement with Plaintiff Connor. Chase never specifically advised Plaintiff Connor about the sale of her loans to Fannie Mae and the resulting Chase loan servicing agreement with Fannie Mae for several years, until approximately October, 2008 when Chase employee "Lynn", employee number(###) ###-#### informed Plaintiff Connor that her loan had been sold by Chase to Fannie Mae and owned all along by Fannie Mae
.”"

The rest is okay.