Lizza et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|February 27, 2014
ORDER GRANTING MOTION BY DEFENDANT DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 62) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 62 - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 2/27/2014. "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED.1. Plaintiffs' WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. Plaintiffs' HAWAII UNFAIR DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT claims are DISMISSED WI TH LEAVE TO AMEND. a. If Plaintiffs elect to include a UDAP claim in an amended complaint, Plaintiffs must comply with the heightened pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) in alleging a violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. Ch. 480, s pecifying the time, place and content of the fraudulent representation. Plaintiffs must also allege how they were injured and proof of damages. b. Plaintiffs' UDAP claims cannot be based on any alleged failure by Defendant to refer to the sec uritization process in the recorded assignments or in filings related to the non-judicial foreclosures of Plaintiffs' Properties. Plaintiffs' UDAP claims also cannot be based on the allegation that the assignment was unauthorized by the L iquidation Trustee in the New Century bankruptcy proceedings. 3. Plaintiffs' INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4. Plaintiffs' UNCLEAN HANDS/TORTFEASOR CONDUCT AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may file a Proposed Amended Complaint, alleging a UDAP claim, against Deutsche Bank, in its trustee capacity, by March 31, 2014." (emt, )< FONT SIZE=1>CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|September 24, 2013
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF REMAND(ECF No. 34 ). Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 9/24/2013. ~The Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), provides the Court with original jurisdiction over the action. Plaintif f's Motion for an Order of Remand (ECF No. 34) is DENIED. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?