Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Focht v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

July 15, 2019

JAMES C. FOCHT and KAREN FOCHT, Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d/b/a MR. COOPER, as successor in interest to SETERUS, INC. Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          KIM R. GIBSON JUDGE

         Before the Court is Plaintiffs James and Karen Focht's Motion to Compel Discovery and Impose Sanctions. (ECF No. 25.) Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC filed a response (ECF No. 26) and Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 27.) Accordingly, the Motion is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion IN PART.

         I. Background

         This case arises from a dispute regarding a mortgage on a home that Plaintiffs own in Tyrone, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 1-3 ¶ 3.) Seterus, Inc. is a mortgage-servicing company that serviced Plaintiffs' mortgage. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6.) Plaintiffs allege that Seterus - and its successor in interest Nationstar Mortgage, LLC doing business as Mr. Cooper (collectively "Defendant") -violated federal and Pennsylvania law by failing to accept payment to satisfy the mortgage and failing to adequately communicate with the Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 1-3 ¶¶ 40-100.)

         The instant discovery dispute arises from Defendant's alleged failure to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. Plaintiffs served a set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon Defendant on February 5, 2019. (ECF No. 25 at 1.) Plaintiffs agreed to extend the deadline to respond to those requests until June 7, 2019. (ECF No. 25 at 1-2; ECF No. 26 at 1.)

         Defendant did not respond to Plaintiffs' interrogatories until June 12, 2019. (ECF No. 25 at 1.) Defendant did provide Plaintiffs with relevant documents on a rolling basis while the discovery requests were outstanding. (ECF No. 26 at 1-2.)

         In their Motion, Plaintiffs argue that:

(1) Defendant should be precluded from objecting to Plaintiffs' interrogatories because Defendant waived its right to object by responding untimely and without good cause (ECF No. 25 at 2-3);
(2) Defendant should be required to serve verified answers to Plaintiffs' interrogatories (id. at 3);
(3) Defendant should be compelled to answer or supplement its answers to Interrogatories one through four and seven through thirteen (id. at 3-7); and
(4) Defendant's failure to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests and failure to provide adequate responses justifies the imposition of sanctions, (id. at 7-9.)

         Defendant disagrees with each of Plaintiffs' arguments. (ECF No. 26 at 2-5.) Defendant attached amended responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories that address many of Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the sufficiency of Defendant's interrogatory responses. (ECF No. 26-3.)

         Plaintiffs filed a reply brief addressing Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' Motion and the amended interrogatory responses it attached. (ECF No. 27.) In their reply, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant should be precluded from presenting fact witnesses at trial beyond those listed in their amended interrogatory responses. (Id. at 2-3.) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.