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.

Ademiluyi v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC

United States District Court, D. Maryland

March 11, 2013

CHRISTIE ADEMILUYI, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v.
PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST HOLDINGS I, LLC, et al., Defendants

Page 503

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 504

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 505

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 506

For Christie Ademiluyi, On behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Janet Sue Legg, Phillip Rease Robinson, Scott C Borison, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Phillip R Robinson, Legg Law Firm LLC, Frederick, MD.

For PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC, PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust, Defendants: Edward W Chang, Blank Rome LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Harris N Cogan, PRO HAC VICE, Blank Rome LLP, New York, NY; James Robert Billings Kang, Blank Rome LLP, Washington, DC.

OPINION

Ellen Lipton Hollander, United States District Judge.

Page 507

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Christie Ademiluyi filed a Class Action Complaint (the " Complaint," ECF 1) against defendants PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC (" PennyMac Holdings" ) and PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust (" PennyMac Trust" ) (collectively, " PennyMac" ), asserting claims under state and federal law, based on defendants' debt collection activities. Plaintiff contends, inter alia, that defendants operated as debt collection agencies in Maryland without obtaining the requisite debt collection license, in accordance with the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (" MCALA" ), Md. Code (2010 Repl. Vol., 2012 Supp.), § 7-301 of the Business Regulation Article (" B.R." ). She seeks damages in excess of $8,500,000.

In particular, Count I, styled as a claim for " Class Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief," seeks a declaration that defendants unlawfully engaged in debt collection practices. In addition, plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct, and requests disgorgement of " all amounts that each has obtained while acting illegally as a debt collection agency without a license." Count II alleges that defendants' unlicensed debt collection activity violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" FDCPA" ), including 15 U.S.C. § § 1692e & 1692f. In Count III, plaintiff asserts that defendants' unlicensed debt collection activity constitutes mortgage fraud, in violation of the Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act (" MMFPA" ), Md. Code (2010 Repl. Vol, 2012 Supp.), § 7-401 et seq. of the Real Property ...


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.