Sarsfield et al v. CITIMORTGAGE, Inc.
Plaintiff: Neil L. Sarsfield and Shelley Sarsfield
Defendant: CitiMortgage, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2009cv00835
Filed: May 4, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office: Harrisburg Office
County: Adams
Presiding Judge: Sylvia H. Rambo
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1601 Truth in Lending
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 50 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 1) Dfts' mtn to dismiss pltfs' amended complaint 36 is granted without predjudice with regard to Pltfs claims in Count II for violations of the Truth in Lending Act. Plts are granted leave to file a secondamended com plaint within twenty days from the date of this order articulating afactual basis for their claim and for the application of equitable tolling to statute of limitations. If Pltfs do not file a second amended complaint within that time, or later if so ordered by the court, the court will dismiss this count with prejudice and close the case.. 2) Dfts motion is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE as to Pltfs claims for negligence (Count I), fraud (Count III), negligent misrepresentation (Count IV), and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (Count V).Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 4/20/10 (ma, )
October 21, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 15 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1) Defendants motion to dismiss, 9 , is GRANTED IN PARTAND DENIED IN PART as follows:a) GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with regard to Pltfs claims in Count I under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Pltfs are granted leave to file an amended complaint within twenty days from the date of this order articulating a factual basis for its cause of action under RESPA and the regulations found at 24 C.F.R. § 3500 et seq. If Pltfs do n ot file an Amended Complaint within twenty days, this case will proceed on Pltfs negligence claims only.b) GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent that Pltfs claims are based on violations of either 12 U.S.C. § 2604 or 12 U.S.C. § 2609 as neit her of these sections contains an express of implied private right of action.c) Defendants motion is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE as toPlaintiffs claims for punitive damages pursuant to RESPA.d) DENIED in all other respects.Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 10/21/09 (ma, )
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 Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sarsfield et al v. CITIMORTGAGE, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Neil L. Sarsfield
Represented By: Jason A. Ostendorf
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 ]
Plaintiff: Shelley Sarsfield
Represented By: Jason A. Ostendorf
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: CitiMortgage, Inc.
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?