Rosendale v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc.

Background

Donald P. Rosendale, a self-represented plaintiff and reverse mortgagor, brought claims against Mr. Cooper Group Inc. concerning alleged misconduct in servicing his reverse mortgage. His third amended complaint asserted eleven claims. During discovery, Rosendale focused on the defendant’s withdrawal of a 2019 application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for collection of mortgage-insurance premiums connected to his mortgage.

The defendant said it withdrew the application because of this lawsuit. Rosendale disputed that explanation and sought production of the application, arguing that the withdrawal showed the defendant lacked clear title and that there was a break in the mortgage’s chain of title.

Requests Reviewed by the Court

Rosendale asked the court to review two orders by Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison. The first denied his request to compel additional answers to interrogatories about the withdrawn application. The second denied his request for 14 additional days to depose the defendant’s corporate representative. Rosendale also moved for leave to amend the third amended complaint to add allegations that the defendant withdrew its application because it could not deliver clear title to the housing agency.

The district court treated Judge Davison’s two orders as a report and recommendation, meaning a magistrate judge’s proposed ruling for the district judge to review. Although the court said Rosendale’s objections repeated his earlier arguments, it reviewed the recommendations anew rather than only checking for a clear mistake.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that all three requests depended on the same relevance question: whether the alleged title problem related to Rosendale’s allegations that the defendant improperly withdrew money from his credit line to pay taxes or insurance. The court agreed with Judge Davison that the proposed title-related discovery and allegations were not relevant to those claims.

The court also found that Rosendale had not been prevented from conducting discovery. According to the court, he had been given substantial leeway to ask questions during the defendant’s deposition, including questions the court considered unrelated to the allegations in the third amended complaint. The court further noted that Rosendale had an adequate opportunity to conduct the deposition, had not previously raised objections with the court, and waited until weeks after the deadline for nonexpert depositions had passed to seek additional time.

The court separately found the motion to amend untimely. The deadline for amending the pleadings was January 24, 2022, and Rosendale had filed four sets of pleadings before that deadline. The court stated that discovery was nearly complete and that Rosendale had not explained why allegations concerning conduct in 2019 could not have been included earlier.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted Judge Davison’s report and recommendation. The court denied Rosendale’s motion to compel additional interrogatory responses, denied his motion to extend the time to depose the defendant, and denied his motion for leave to amend the third amended complaint. The opinion addressed discovery and amendment requests and did not decide the underlying mortgage-servicing claims.