Harte v. Ocwen Financial Corp. et al
Plaintiff: Deborah C. Harte
Defendant: Ocwen Financial Corp. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Case Number: 2:2013cv05410
Filed: September 30, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge: A. Kathleen Tomlinson
Presiding Judge: Leonard D. Wexler
Nature of Suit: Real Property: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 22, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 160 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses Plaintiff's claims. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 8/22/2019. (Piper, Francine)
March 30, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 155 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons discussed in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim, as well as Plaintiff's sec tion 349 claim based on a failure to provide pre-foreclosure notice. The Court reserves decision as to Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs section 349 dual tracking claim, and Plaintiff's motion for class certification of this claim. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/30/2018. (McKenzie, Lindsay)
July 1, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, having reviewed Plaintiff's objections to 83 Judge Reyes' March 11, 2016 report and recommendation, the Court adopts Judge Reyes' recommendation and grants Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract based on the notice provision of the mortgage. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 7/1/2016. (Haji, Sara)
March 31, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 87 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, having reviewed the unopposed portions of 83 Judge Reyes' March 11, 2016 report and recommendation (the "R&R") and finding no clear error, the Court adopts Judge Reyes' unopposed recommendations. The Court (1) denies OLS' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for promissory estoppel, (2) grants OLS' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for breach o f an implied covenant of good faith, (3) grants OLS' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for breach of the loan modification agreement, and (4) grants OFC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's veil piercing theory indirect liability. For the reasons set forth above, the Court rejects OFC's objections to the R&R and denies OFC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's agency theory of indirect liability. The Court reserves decision as to Plaintiff's objection to Judge Reyes' recommendation that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's breach of contract claims that are based on the mortgage. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/31/2016. (Rolle, Drew)
September 19, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 53 MEMORANDUM and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 34 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC's ("OLS") motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part; Defendant Ocwen Financial Corp's ("OFC") motion to dismiss is granted. All claims against OFC are dismissed without prejudice . Plaintiffs claims against OLS based on breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and New York General Business Law § 350 are also dismissed. Defendant s motions as to Plaintiffs claims against OLS based on promissory estoppel and New York General Business Law § 349 are denied. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to address the defects identified by the Court and to submit an amended complaint. The amended complaint, if any, shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 9/19/2014. (Ramos, Christopher)
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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Harte v. Ocwen Financial Corp. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Deborah C. Harte
Represented By: James Gerard Flynn
Represented By: Robert Ira Harwood
Represented By: Benjamin Isaac Sachs-Michaels
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ocwen Financial Corp.
Represented By: Robert Bruce Allensworth
Represented By: Brian M. Forbes
Represented By: Robert W. Sparkes
Represented By: David S. Versfelt
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Represented By: Robert Bruce Allensworth
Represented By: Brian M. Forbes
Represented By: Robert W. Sparkes
Represented By: David S. Versfelt
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?