No. 20-399

Jung Hyun Cho, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-09-28
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: due-process mortgage-securitization non-judicial-foreclosure property-dispute standing subject-matter-jurisdiction unlawful-detainer
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-01-15 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a state summary court has competent jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action challenged by a bona fide property dispute arising from a non-judicial foreclosure auction of a privacy-label mortgage securitization

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether a state summary court has competent jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action challenged by a bona fide property dispute arising from a non-judicial foreclosure auction of a privacy-label mortgage securitization. Il. Whether anon-assigned Article III judge’s “independent duty” intervention with removal jurisdiction of a state unlawful detainer case to a related federal case is constitutional, absent emergency and absent any motion by a party. ‘Wl. Whether the remand by the non-assigned judge to the state court whose jurisdiction is challenged is constitutional amid the alleged fraud upon the court in the remand proceedings, and whether the remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the state case that “forms part of the same case or controversy” is constitutional, notwithstanding the supplemental jurisdiction. IV. Whether non-borrowing co-occupants/family members of a homeowner have standing to FHA! redress on grounds of an injury in fact as aggrieved persons. V. Whether the holding by the trial court that Petitioners have no private party right of action under HAMP? is valid, notwithstanding a landmark decision to the contrary. VI. Whether continuity plus relationship substantiated by a facially plausible factual content and extrinsic evidence is not cognizable enough to invoke the RICO? pattern requirements ; as proximate cause. VII. Whether Local. R. 302(c)(21) limiting pro se litigants’ due process rights to be heard before Article III judges is constitutional. VIII. | Whether a trustee of certificate holders of private-label MBS‘ is eligible for postmortem credit bid on a non-judicial foreclosure auction, absent a competent cash bidder. 4 Fair Housing Act of 1968 2 Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) 3 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act OF 1970 4 Mortgage-Backed Security is classified as privacy-label MBS and agency-label MBS. Agency means ee GSE(Government Sponsored Enterprise) including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. . .

Docket Entries

2021-01-19
Rehearing DENIED.
2020-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.
2020-12-16
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2020-11-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-18
Waiver of right of respondent The Wolf Firm, A Law Corporation to respond filed.
2020-11-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/20/2020.
2020-09-30
Waiver of right of respondent Bank of America, N.A. to respond filed.
2020-07-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 28, 2020)

Attorneys

Bank of America, N.A.
Kerry William FranichSeverson & Werson, Respondent
Jung Hyun Cho, et al.
Jung Hyun Cho — Petitioner
The Wolf Firm, A Law Corporation
Christine E HowsonThe Wolf Firm, A Law Corporation, Respondent