FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/06/2018 02:05 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04m2018 02:05 PM
`NYSC 3F DOC. NO. 123
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123
`
`IND
`EX NO.
`850108/2015
`INDEX NO. 850108/2015
`
` VYSC
`
` 4|IV-v .D
` 3F:
`
`04/06/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/06/2018
`
`Exhibit 7
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/06/2018 02:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123
`
`INDEX NO. 850108/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/06/2018
`
`Case
`
`3:13-cv-04249-WHA
`
`Document
`
`122
`
`Filed
`
`04/11/17
`
`Page
`
`1 of 9
`
`IN THE UNITED
`
`STATES
`
`DISTRICT
`
`COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN
`
`DISTRICT
`
`OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SEAN K. BURKE
`
`and DEBORAH
`
`L. BURKE,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`JPMORGAN
`FARGO
`BANK,
`JPMORGAN
`MORTGAGE
`CERTIFICATES
`
`N.A.; WELLS
`CIIASE
`BANK,
`FOR
`AS TRUSTEE
`N.A.,
`MORTGAGE
`TRUST
`2008-R2
`PASS-THROUGH
`SERIES
`2008 R-2,
`
`Defendants.
`
`/
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`No. C 13-04249 WHA
`
`DENYING
`ORDER
`FOR RELIEF
`MOTION
`FROM JUDGMENT
`TO SEAL
`AND MOTION
`
`In this
`
`foreclosure
`
`dispute,
`
`plaintiffs
`
`move
`
`for
`
`relief
`
`from judgment
`
`following
`
`an order
`
`defendants'
`
`granting
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment.
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`is DENIED.
`
`STATEMENT
`
`order
`
`defendants'
`
`for
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`91
`
`0
`
`4l
`
`.
`Q 5
`4
`w
`
`The
`
`details
`
`of
`
`this
`
`case are set
`
`forth
`
`in a previous
`
`granting
`
`motion
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`(Dkt.
`
`No.
`
`93),
`
`but will
`
`now be briefly
`
`restated.
`
`1.
`
`THE MORTGAGE
`
`LOAN
`
`NOTE
`
`AND DEED OF TRUST.
`
`In August
`
`2007,
`
`plaintiffs
`
`Sean Burke
`
`and Deborah
`
`Burke
`
`obtained
`
`a home
`
`loan
`
`in the
`
`amount
`
`of $1,246,250.00
`
`from Washington
`
`Mutual
`
`Bank,
`
`F.A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`signed
`
`an adjustable
`
`rate note
`
`promising
`
`to make
`
`payments
`
`on it
`
`to WaMu.
`
`In September
`
`2008, WaMu
`
`failed
`
`and the Federal
`
`Deposit
`
`Insurance
`
`Corporation
`
`became
`
`its receiver.
`
`On the same
`
`day,
`
`JPMorgan
`
`Chase
`
`Bank,
`
`N.A.,
`
`executed
`
`a purchase
`
`and
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`96
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/06/2018 02:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123
`
`INDEX NO. 850108/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/06/2018
`
`Case
`
`3:13-cv-04249-WHA
`
`Document
`
`122
`
`Filed
`
`04/11/17
`
`Page
`
`2 of 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`assumption
`
`agreement
`
`with
`
`the FDIC
`
`by which
`
`it agreed
`
`to purchase
`
`certain WaMu
`
`assets,
`
`including
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`specifically
`
`all mortgage
`
`servicing
`
`rights
`
`and obligations.
`
`One
`
`loan
`
`acquired
`
`was
`
`loan.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`soon
`
`began missing
`
`payments,
`
`however,
`
`and submitted
`
`multiple
`
`modification
`
`applications,
`
`all denied,
`
`leading
`
`to a notice
`
`of default
`
`and two
`
`subsequent
`
`notices
`
`of
`
`trustee
`
`sales.
`
`Both
`
`trustee
`
`sales
`
`have
`
`been
`
`postponed.
`
`an assignment
`
`was
`
`recorded
`
`the September
`
`2008
`
`assignment
`
`of
`
`In 2015,
`
`memorializing
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`deed
`
`of
`
`trust,
`
`and all
`
`interests
`
`in it,
`
`from the FDIC
`
`to Chase
`
`(Dkt.
`
`No.
`
`85-5
`
`at 80).
`
`As of July
`
`2016,
`
`plaintiffs
`
`remained
`
`in default
`
`and the loan
`
`had an unpaid
`
`principal
`
`balance
`
`of $1,303,620.08
`
`and a total
`
`payoff
`
`amount
`
`of $1,823,963.50.
`
`2.
`
`PLAINTIFFS'
`
`THEORY.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`filed
`
`this
`
`action
`
`in September
`
`2013,
`
`and amended
`
`their
`
`complaint
`
`in
`
`February
`
`2014.
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`claims
`
`rested
`
`on their
`
`theory
`
`that Chase
`
`and Wells
`
`Fargo
`
`Bank,
`
`for
`
`JPMorgan
`
`Mortgage
`
`Trust
`
`2008-R2
`
`Mortgage
`
`Pass-Through
`
`Certificates
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`'I
`
`o
`
`~
`~g
`+ 's
`
`t:
`CC 0
`
`o
`
`.
`
`N.A.,
`
`as trustee
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`series
`
`2008-R2,
`
`lacked
`
`a beneficial
`
`interest
`
`in
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`mortgage
`
`loan.
`
`Chase
`
`allegedly
`
`could
`
`not
`
`enforce
`
`the underlying
`
`note
`
`because WaMu
`
`had allegedly
`
`sold
`
`the interests
`
`in
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`loan
`
`to an unknown
`
`interim
`
`loan
`
`purchaser
`
`prior
`
`to Chase's
`
`purchase
`
`of WaMu's
`
`assets
`
`in
`
`September
`
`2008.
`
`The
`
`interim
`
`purchaser
`
`then
`
`sold
`
`the same
`
`interests
`
`to Wells
`
`Fargo,
`
`as trustee
`
`of
`
`the security
`
`trust. Wells
`
`Fargo
`
`allegedly
`
`could
`
`not
`
`enforce
`
`the underlying
`
`note
`
`through
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`of
`
`to
`
`trust
`
`because
`
`there were
`
`no intervening
`
`assignments
`
`of
`
`deed
`
`trust
`
`from WaMu
`
`the interim
`
`purchaser,
`
`and from the interim
`
`purchaser
`
`to the security
`
`trust,
`
`as required
`
`by the
`
`binding
`
`terms
`
`of
`
`the security
`
`trust's
`
`agreement
`
`and instrument.
`
`No
`
`evidence
`
`of
`
`this
`
`securitization
`
`was
`
`ever
`
`presented
`
`(Dkt.
`
`No.
`
`93 at 4).
`
`In fact,
`
`plaintiffs
`
`did
`
`not undertake
`
`any written
`
`or oral
`
`discovery
`
`during
`
`the course
`
`of
`
`the action
`
`(Dkt.
`
`No.
`
`110-1
`
`at 2).
`
`Furthermore,
`
`plaintiffs
`
`response
`
`to Chase's
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`motion
`
`appended
`
`no evidentiary
`
`support.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/06/2018 02:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123
`
`INDEX NO. 850108/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/06/2018
`
`Case
`
`3:13-cv-04249-WHA
`
`Document
`
`122
`
`Filed
`
`04/11/17
`
`Page
`
`3 of 9
`
`3.
`
`FINAL
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`IN FAVOR
`
`OF DEFENDANTS.
`
`After
`
`full
`
`briefing
`
`and oral
`
`argument,
`
`Chase's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`was
`
`granted.
`
`The
`
`order
`
`stated
`
`in pertinent
`
`part
`
`(Dkt.
`
`No.
`
`—
`93 at 4-5):
`
`order
`This
`defendants
`as to whether
`Chase
`owns
`otherwise.
`
`that
`
`concludes
`is appropriate
`Chase
`holds
`the mortgage;
`
`of
`in favor
`judgment
`summary
`here
`because
`exists
`no material
`dispute
`a beneficial
`interest
`in the mortgage.
`plaintiff
`submits
`to suggest
`nothing
`
`the
`Chase
`demonstrates
`that
`evidence
`submit
`Defendants
`owns
`note
`as well
`possesses
`of
`as the deed
`the original
`loan.
`Chase
`—
`A Chase
`who
`has reviewed
`employee
`¶ 9-10).
`Decl.
`(Childress
`states
`in a declaration
`the mortgage
`of
`that
`no sale
`record
`the entire
`prior
`of
`the mortgage
`occurred
`to Chase's
`or securitization
`of WaMu's
`in September
`of 2008
`purchase
`assets
`(Childress
`Decl.
`of deed was
`¶ 10). Moreover,
`an assignment
`recorded
`in 2015,
`that
`which
`the transfer
`occurred
`by operation
`"memorialize[d]
`2008"
`of
`law on September
`the mortgage
`from the FDIC
`Exh.
`WaMu's
`receiver
`6).
`(RJN,
`
`trust
`
`of
`
`as
`
`25,
`to Chase
`
`in their
`that plaintiffs
`opposition
`cite
`evidence
`The
`only
`to the amended
`complaint.
`appended
`screenshots
`are blurry
`refer
`but make
`to a mortgage-backed
`The
`screenshots
`no
`security
`plaintiffs'
`to
`loan.
`make
`identifiable
`reference
`Plaintiffs
`no effort
`plaintiffs'
`how the screenshots
`to explain
`show
`loan was
`no reasonable
`of
`fact
`securitized.
`This
`order
`holds
`that
`trier
`could
`on these
`conclude
`based
`screenshots
`that
`the loan was
`securitized
`prior
`purchase
`of WaMu's
`assets
`in September
`to Chase's
`2008.
`
`brief
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`All
`of
`do not
`mortgage,
`
`own
`
`rise
`and fall
`claims
`Because
`Chase
`the loan.
`plaintiffs'
`all of
`claims
`fail.
`
`on the theory
`demonstrates
`
`that
`that
`
`defendants
`it owns
`
`the
`
`appealed
`
`the order
`
`defendants'
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`judgment
`
`and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`g
`4
`
`5O
`
`.
`
`~ 'c
`'a
`
`.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`granting
`
`summary
`
`final
`
`judgment
`
`in October
`
`2016
`
`(Dkt.
`
`No.
`
`96).
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`now move
`
`for
`
`relief
`
`from the same
`
`order
`
`and judgment
`
`pursuant
`
`to Rule
`
`60(b)(3).
`
`This
`
`order
`
`follows
`
`full
`
`briefing,
`
`oral
`
`argument,
`
`and supplemental
`
`briefing.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Once
`
`an appeal
`
`is filed,
`
`the district
`
`court
`
`no longer
`
`has jurisdiction
`
`to consider
`
`motions
`
`for
`
`relief
`
`from judgment.
`
`Rule
`
`62.1,
`
`however,
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`"[i]f
`
`a timely
`
`motion
`
`is made
`
`for
`
`relief
`
`that
`
`the court
`
`lacks
`
`authority
`
`to grant
`
`because
`
`of an appeal
`
`that
`
`has been
`
`docketed
`
`and is
`
`pending,
`
`the [district]
`
`court may:
`
`(1) defer
`
`considering
`
`the motion;
`
`(2) deny
`
`the motion;
`
`or
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`3
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/06/2018 02:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123
`
`INDEX NO. 850108/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/06/2018
`
`Case
`
`3:13-cv-04249-WHA
`
`Document
`
`122
`
`Filed
`
`04/11/17
`
`Page
`
`4 of 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`(3)
`
`state
`
`either
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`grant
`
`the motion
`
`if
`
`the court
`
`of appeals
`
`remands
`
`for
`
`that
`
`purpose
`
`or
`
`that
`
`the motion
`
`raises
`
`a substantial
`
`issue."
`
`Final
`
`judgment
`
`was
`
`entered
`
`here
`
`pursuant
`
`to the order
`
`granting
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`appealed
`
`the final
`
`judgment.
`
`Therefore,
`
`this motion
`
`proceeds
`
`with
`
`limited
`
`jurisdiction
`
`to take
`
`one of
`
`the actions
`
`specified
`
`by Rule
`
`62.1.
`
`1.
`
`RULE
`
`60(b)(3)
`
`STANDARD.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Rule
`
`60(b)(3)
`
`provides
`
`for
`
`relief
`
`from judgment
`
`for
`
`fraud, misrepresentation,
`
`or
`
`misconduct
`
`by an opposing
`
`party.
`
`To prevail,
`
`the movant
`
`must
`
`prove
`
`by
`
`clear
`
`and convincing
`
`evidence
`
`that
`
`(1)
`
`the prevailing
`
`litigants
`
`obtained
`
`the verdict
`
`through
`
`fraud, misrepresentation,
`
`or other misconduct,
`
`and (2)
`
`the conduct
`
`complained
`
`of prevented
`
`the losing
`
`party
`
`from fully
`
`and
`
`fairly
`
`presenting
`
`the defense.
`
`Casey
`
`v. Albertson'sInc.,
`
`362 F.3d
`
`1254,
`
`1260
`
`(9th Cir.
`
`2004).
`
`Rule
`
`60(b)(3)
`the proceedings."
`
`"requirc[s]
`
`that
`
`fraud
`
`. . . not be discoverable
`
`by due diligence
`
`before
`
`or during
`
`Ibid.
`
`The merits
`
`before
`
`the court
`
`on a Rule
`
`m
`
`.
`
`u
`
`.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`of a case are not
`
`60(b) motion.
`
`Id.
`
`at 1261.
`
`2.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`FRAUDULENTLY
`
`FAIL
`
`TO PROVE
`ENDORSED
`
`CHASE
`THEIR
`
`NOTE.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`argue
`
`that Chase
`
`forged WaMu's
`
`endorsement
`
`of
`
`the mortgage
`
`loan
`
`note
`
`after
`
`the FDIC's
`
`takeover
`
`of WaMu
`
`in September
`
`2008.
`
`They
`
`also
`
`present
`
`evidence
`
`that
`
`purports
`
`to
`
`show Chase
`
`engages
`
`in a pattern
`
`whereby
`
`it continually
`
`expunges,
`
`conceals,
`
`and forges
`
`away
`
`defects
`
`in its chain
`
`of
`
`title
`
`in order
`
`to present
`
`a false
`
`impression
`
`of ownership.
`
`In their
`
`reply,
`
`plaintiffs
`
`conjecture
`
`that Chase
`
`forged
`
`the endorsement
`
`in order
`
`to create
`
`the false
`
`impression
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`securitization"
`
`Regardless
`
`of
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`was
`
`in compliance
`
`with
`
`the regulations
`
`of
`
`the Internal
`
`Revenue
`
`Service.
`
`failure
`
`to show the loan was
`
`securitized
`
`in the first
`
`place,
`
`their
`
`fraud
`
`argument
`
`still
`
`fails
`
`to show by
`
`clear
`
`and convincing
`
`evidence
`
`that
`
`defendants
`
`obtained
`
`any part
`
`of
`
`the judgment
`
`through
`
`fraud.
`
`A.
`
`Ms. Riley's
`
`Employment
`
`History.
`
`At
`
`oral
`
`argument,
`
`plaintiffs
`
`identified
`
`as their
`
`strongest
`
`evidence
`
`the deposition
`
`testimony
`
`of Cynthia
`
`Riley
`
`from a Florida
`
`state
`
`court
`
`action.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`assert
`
`that Cynthia
`
`Riley,
`
`the
`
`4
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/06/2018 02:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123
`
`INDEX NO. 850108/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/06/2018
`
`Case
`
`3:13-cv-04249-WHA
`
`Document
`
`122
`
`Filed
`
`04/11/17
`
`Page
`
`5 of 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`purported
`
`endorser
`
`of
`
`the note,
`
`testified
`
`she was
`
`laid
`
`off
`
`from WaMu
`
`in 2006.
`
`She could
`
`not
`
`have
`
`signed
`
`the 2007
`
`note
`
`zfshe
`
`was
`
`laid
`
`off
`
`in 2006.
`
`The
`
`parties
`
`spent
`
`a majority
`
`of
`
`the hearing
`
`proffering
`
`their
`
`interpretations
`
`of
`
`the
`
`deposition
`
`testimony.
`
`Following
`
`the hearing,
`
`the parties
`
`were
`
`given
`
`the opportunity
`
`to submit
`
`supplemental
`
`other
`
`the timeline
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`briefs
`
`addressing,
`
`among
`
`points,
`
`of Ms. Riley's
`
`employment
`
`with WaMu
`
`and Chase.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`provided
`
`a compilation
`
`of citations
`
`to Ms. Riley's
`
`deposition
`
`testimony.
`
`Defendants
`
`submitted
`
`argument
`
`supported
`
`by Ms. Riley's
`
`deposition
`
`testimony
`
`and
`
`hundreds
`
`of pages
`
`of additional
`
`evidence,
`
`including
`
`a declaration
`
`from August
`
`2015
`
`in an action
`
`before
`
`the United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the Southern
`
`District
`
`of
`
`Indiana.
`
`In the Indiana
`
`declaration,
`
`a Chase
`
`employee
`
`testified
`
`that Ms. Riley
`
`was
`
`employed
`
`as a
`
`and then with
`
`Chase
`
`.S8
`
`3
`
`'a
`
`C
`
`.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`vice
`
`president
`
`with WaMu
`
`from 2004
`
`to 2008,
`
`from 2008
`
`to mid-2013.
`
`Appended
`
`to his declaration
`
`are business
`
`records
`
`showing
`
`Ms. Riley's
`
`matching
`
`job
`
`history.
`
`This
`
`declaration
`
`further
`
`corroborates
`
`Ms. Riley's
`
`deposition
`
`testimony
`
`in the Florida
`
`action
`
`stating
`
`(Riley
`
`Dep.
`
`—
`at 36:25-37:6):
`
`Q:
`
`A:
`
`Q:
`
`A:
`
`When
`
`did you
`
`cease
`
`being
`
`a vice
`
`president
`
`with
`
`the bank?
`
`2008.
`
`Do you
`
`know
`
`what month?
`
`I would
`
`guess.
`
`January
`
`MR.
`
`SCHWARTZ:
`
`Don't
`
`guess.
`
`A:
`
`January
`
`2008.
`
`From these
`
`facts,
`
`no reasonable
`
`jury
`
`could
`
`determine
`
`Chase
`
`laid
`
`off Ms. Riley
`
`prior
`
`to when
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`note was
`
`executed
`
`in 2007.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`suggest
`
`four
`
`alternative
`
`passages
`
`from Ms. Riley's
`
`deposition
`
`to support
`
`their
`
`position.
`
`First
`
`(Riley
`
`Dep.
`
`—
`at 38:14-20):
`
`Q:
`
`A:
`
`And
`
`how long
`
`did
`
`you manage
`
`secondary
`
`delivery
`
`for?
`
`Till
`
`11 of 2006.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`5
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/06/2018 02:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123
`
`INDEX NO. 850108/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/06/2018
`
`Case
`
`3:13-cv-04249-WHA
`
`Document
`
`122
`
`Filed
`
`04/11/17
`
`Page
`
`6 of 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`you'
`
`it
`take
`you managed
`re saying
`of 2004
`from June
`approximately
`
`secondary
`to November
`
`of
`
`Q:
`
`I
`And
`delivery
`2006?
`
`A:
`
`Correct.
`
`This
`
`does
`
`nothing
`
`to prove Ms. Riley
`
`was
`
`laid
`
`off
`
`in 2006
`
`-
`
`certainly
`
`not by
`
`clear
`
`and
`
`convincing
`
`evidence.
`
`It merely
`
`pertains
`
`to her
`
`role
`
`in secondary
`
`delivery
`
`operations.
`
`After
`
`she
`
`left
`
`her managerial
`
`role with
`
`secondary
`
`delivery,
`
`Ms. Riley
`
`"did
`
`project
`
`management
`
`work
`
`[at
`
`WaMu]
`
`for
`
`about
`
`12 months"
`
`(Riley
`
`Dep.
`
`at 61).
`
`Second
`
`(Riley
`
`Dep.
`
`—
`at 57:2-16):
`
`Q:
`
`A:
`
`Okay.
`Florence,
`
`Did
`
`there
`South
`
`come
`Carolina?
`
`a point
`
`in time
`
`that
`
`you
`
`shipped
`
`to
`
`was
`
`built
`
`-
`
`I don't
`
`know
`
`if
`
`that -
`
`can'
`I can't
`
`the vault
`that.
`
`'g
`
`3
`
`.S
`
`.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`When
`answer
`
`MR.
`know.
`
`SCHWARTZ:
`
`If you
`
`don't
`
`know,
`
`say you
`
`don'
`don't
`
`A:
`
`Q:
`
`A:
`
`I
`
`left
`
`the department.
`
`Okay.
`
`When
`
`did you
`
`leave
`
`the department?
`
`In November
`
`of 2006.
`
`Again,
`
`this
`
`only
`
`shows
`
`that Ms. Riley
`
`left
`
`a department
`
`in November
`
`2006,
`
`not
`
`that
`
`she left
`
`WaMu.
`
`Third
`
`(Riley
`
`Dep.
`
`—
`at 64:14-65:9):
`
`Q:
`
`A:
`
`Q:
`
`A:
`
`Q:
`
`you
`Are
`secondary
`of 2006?
`
`that
`clear
`delivery
`
`Jacksonville's
`operations,
`
`operation,
`closed
`down
`
`as far as
`in November
`
`MR. WEISS:
`
`Object
`
`to the form of
`
`the question.
`
`We were
`
`laid
`
`off
`
`the end of
`
`that
`
`Okay.
`
`And
`
`so is your
`
`answer
`
`year.
`there was -
`
`yes,
`
`strike
`
`that.
`
`Is it your
`operations
`
`answer
`going
`
`there were
`that
`on in Jacksonville
`
`no secondary
`delivery
`the end of 2006?
`by
`
`Correct.
`
`And when
`you
`the department.
`correct?
`
`say you were
`You
`continued
`
`laid
`
`off
`you were
`laid
`off,
`to work
`for
`JP Morgan;
`
`from
`
`6
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/06/2018 02:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123
`
`INDEX NO. 850108/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/06/2018
`
`Case
`
`3:13-cv-04249-WHA
`
`Document
`
`122
`
`Filed
`
`04/11/17
`
`Page
`
`7 of 9
`
`MR.
`
`SCHWARTZ:
`
`Form.
`
`I was
`Morgan
`
`laid
`
`and subsequently
`off
`in January.
`
`got a job
`
`back with
`
`JP
`
`of what
`
`year?
`
`January
`
`2009.
`
`And when
`
`were
`
`you
`
`laid
`
`off?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`A:
`
`Q:
`
`A:
`
`Q:
`
`A:
`
`It had to have
`
`been
`
`11, November.
`plaintiffs'
`
`supports
`
`theory
`
`that Ms. Riley
`
`was not
`
`This
`
`is the only
`
`passage
`
`that
`
`potentially
`
`when
`
`the note was
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`~w
`
`Q
`
`employed
`
`by WaMu
`
`executed.
`
`To the contrary,
`
`however,
`
`as evident
`
`from
`
`the previous
`
`passages
`
`and the supplementary
`
`declaration
`
`of Chase, Ms. Riley
`
`was
`
`employed
`
`by
`
`WaMu
`
`event,
`
`as a vice
`
`president
`
`until
`
`2008
`
`and then with
`
`Chase
`
`from 2008
`
`until mid-2013.
`
`In any
`
`this
`
`one passage
`
`amongst
`
`other
`
`evidently
`
`contradictory
`
`statements
`
`in this
`
`very
`
`deposition
`
`does
`
`not
`
`rise
`
`to the clear
`
`and convincing
`
`evidence
`
`standard
`
`required
`
`by our
`
`court
`
`of appeals
`
`for
`
`relief.
`
`g 'i
`9
`
`.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Rule
`
`60(b)(3)
`
`Finally
`
`(Riley
`
`Dep.
`
`—
`at 70:17-21):
`
`Q:
`
`I'
`be glad
`I'll
`the signature
`to. Does
`to the -
`similar
`to the facsimile
`your
`tenure
`June
`between
`during
`of 2006?
`
`that
`stamps
`of 2004
`
`appear
`there
`appears
`that were
`used
`and November
`
`A:
`
`This
`
`is my signature,
`
`yes.
`
`This
`
`passage,
`
`at most,
`
`shows
`
`a misunderstanding
`
`on the part
`
`of
`
`the deposing
`
`attorney.
`
`Ms. Riley's
`
`testimony,
`
`on the other
`
`hand,
`
`simply
`
`identifies
`
`her
`
`signature.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`Other
`
`Evidence.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`also
`
`submit
`
`unexplained
`
`screenshots
`
`and,
`
`separately,
`
`testimony
`
`from purported
`
`of
`
`expert William
`
`Paatalo
`
`asserting
`
`there
`
`is "an
`
`abundance
`
`information
`
`now in the public
`
`domain,
`
`as well
`
`as within
`
`the realm of
`
`[his]
`
`personal
`
`investigative
`
`experiences,
`
`suggest
`
`that
`
`the largest
`
`servicers
`
`create
`
`note
`
`endorsements
`
`and/or
`
`allonges
`
`when
`
`to universally
`missing"
`
`(Dkt.
`
`No.
`
`106-1
`
`$19).
`
`Paatalo
`
`also
`
`asserts
`
`that he has personal
`
`knowledge
`
`of an attorney
`
`for Chase
`
`in
`
`a similar
`
`case who
`
`admitted
`
`that
`
`a foreclosure
`
`plaintiff's
`
`2005
`
`note with
`
`a similar
`
`endorsement
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`7
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/06/2018 02:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123
`
`INDEX NO. 850108/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/06/2018
`
`Case
`
`3:13-cv-04249-WHA
`
`Document
`
`122
`
`Filed
`
`04/11/17
`
`Page
`
`8 of 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`by Riley
`
`was
`
`not
`
`endorsed
`
`until
`
`September
`
`2013,
`
`when
`
`Chase
`
`felt
`
`the need
`
`to do so in
`
`preparation
`
`for
`
`litigation
`
`(ibid.).
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`That
`
`reply
`
`and oral
`
`argument
`
`all but
`
`abandoned
`
`this
`
`additional
`
`evidence
`
`is
`
`revealing.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`must
`
`show
`
`that
`
`the conduct
`
`complained
`
`of prevented
`
`them from fully
`
`and
`
`fairly
`
`presenting
`
`the defense,
`
`in addition
`
`to showing
`
`defendants
`
`obtained
`
`the verdict
`
`through
`
`fraud.
`
`Casey,
`
`362 F.3d
`
`at 1260. While WaMu
`
`provides
`
`declarations
`
`and evidence
`
`supporting
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`the legitimate
`
`endorsement
`
`of
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`note,
`
`purported
`
`expert
`
`waxes
`
`on corporate
`
`misbehavior
`
`and an action
`
`in Rhode
`
`Island
`
`state
`
`court
`
`where WaMu
`
`endorsed
`
`a different
`
`note
`
`for
`
`a different
`
`plaintiff
`
`in anticipation
`
`of
`
`litigation.
`
`This
`
`offering,
`
`as well
`
`as Ms. Riley's
`
`testimony,
`
`fails
`
`to show by
`
`clear
`
`and convincing
`
`evidence
`
`any
`
`conduct
`
`that prevented
`
`plaintiffs,
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`the public
`
`at
`
`large
`
`their
`
`verdict
`
`through
`
`or a Rhode
`-
`
`fraud
`
`Island
`
`plaintiff,
`
`a full
`
`and fair
`
`defense
`
`or
`
`that
`
`defendants
`
`obtained
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`is DENIED.
`
`.
`
`declaration
`
`the
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`additionally
`
`move
`
`to seal an exhibit
`
`from Paatalo's
`
`containing
`
`transcript
`
`of Michael
`
`McCormick,
`
`a former
`
`Chase
`
`employee,
`
`from the Rhode
`
`Island
`
`state
`
`court
`
`matter.
`
`Local
`
`Rule
`
`79-5(e)
`
`requires
`
`identification
`
`of, and notification
`
`to,
`
`the opposing
`
`party
`
`who
`
`designated
`
`the subject
`
`document
`
`as confidential
`
`pursuant
`
`to a protective
`
`order.
`
`Despite
`
`complying
`
`with
`
`the notification
`
`and identification
`
`process,
`
`neither
`
`plaintiffs
`
`nor Chase
`
`indicate
`
`the transcript
`
`was
`
`subject
`
`to a protective
`
`order.
`
`Additionally,
`
`neither
`
`party
`
`claim any privileges
`
`0 I
`
`«
`
`a
`
`.
`
`or
`
`trade
`
`secrets
`
`are exposed
`
`in the transcript.
`
`This
`
`is insufficient
`
`to take
`
`the extraordinary
`
`step of
`
`denying
`
`public
`
`access
`
`to the courts.
`
`The motion
`
`to seal
`
`is DENIED.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For
`
`the reasons
`
`stated
`
`herein,
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`relief
`
`from judgment
`
`is DENIED
`
`and
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`to seal
`
`is DENIED.
`
`The Court
`
`suspects
`
`that
`
`the motion
`
`for
`
`relief
`
`from judgment
`
`was
`
`really
`
`intended
`
`to lard
`
`the record
`
`with
`
`new angles
`
`and extra
`
`evidence
`
`that
`
`could
`
`have
`
`been
`
`used
`
`seven months
`
`ago when
`
`the summary
`
`judgment
`
`motion
`
`was
`
`decided.
`
`In their
`
`pending
`
`appeal,
`
`counsel
`
`shall
`
`please
`
`be
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/06/2018 02:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123
`
`INDEX NO. 850108/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/06/2018
`
`Case
`
`3:13-cv-04249-WHA
`
`Document
`
`122
`
`Filed
`
`04/11/17
`
`Page
`
`9 of 9
`
`frank
`
`with
`
`our
`
`court
`
`of appeals
`
`as to what was
`
`and was
`
`not
`
`before
`
`the Court
`
`at
`
`the time
`
`of
`
`the
`
`original
`
`ruling.
`
`IT
`
`IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated:
`
`April
`
`11, 2017.
`
`WILLIAMALSUP
`UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTJUDGE
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`~O
`
`E
`
`.
`
`.
`
`9
`
`