Forde v. PHH Mortgage Corporation
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-04090
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Forde v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, Judge Halpern granted defendants permission to seek dismissal and set briefing deadlines without deciding the claims.
Glenn Forde and the defendants seeking permission to file dismissal motions—PHH Mortgage Corporation, the Honorable David F. Everett, and Westchester County.
What happened
In Forde v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, Glenn Forde challenged conduct related to a state-court mortgage foreclosure action. The opinion says his claims included constitutional claims under a federal civil-rights law and a claim for abuse of legal process. Forde was representing himself.
The court did not decide whether Forde’s claims were valid or whether they should be dismissed. Instead, it granted the defendants’ requests for permission to file motions to dismiss, waived the required preliminary conference because Forde was representing himself, and set deadlines for the parties’ briefs.
Judge Philip M. Halpern also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion entries and mail a copy of the order to Forde. The order therefore addressed the procedure for pursuing a dismissal motion, not the merits of the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Forde v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · No. 7:23-cv-04090
- Philip Halpern
- July 7, 2023
What the Order Addressed
The court addressed defendants’ requests for permission to file motions to dismiss Glenn Forde’s amended complaint. The defendants identified as seeking that relief were PHH Mortgage Corporation, the Honorable David F. Everett, and Westchester County. The order states that Forde was representing himself, so the court waived its usual requirement for a preliminary conference before filing a motion to dismiss.
Underlying Dispute
The opinion describes Forde’s federal case as challenging alleged misconduct connected with efforts to foreclose on residential mortgage property. It identifies three claims: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations against the county; another § 1983 claim alleging invasion of privacy against the loan servicer and its agents; and a claim for abuse of process against an attorney and agents.
The opinion also describes an earlier state-court foreclosure action. It says that Forde’s answer was struck, the state court granted summary judgment, and the state court later entered an order of reference and a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The state court later allowed PHH Mortgage Corporation to proceed with the foreclosure and denied Forde’s motion to dismiss that action. The defendants’ filing argued that the federal claims were barred by doctrines including the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion. Those arguments were presented as grounds for an anticipated motion; this order did not resolve them.
Court’s Action
The court granted the defendants’ requests for leave to move to dismiss. It directed each defendant to file a notice of motion and directed the defendants to file one joint set of briefs. The order set August 7, 2023, for the notices of motion and joint opening brief; September 4, 2023, for Forde’s opposition; and September 18, 2023, for the defendants’ joint reply.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion entries pending at docket documents 9, 13, 14, and 15, and to mail a copy of the order to Forde. The order did not grant or deny a motion to dismiss, dismiss any claim, or decide the parties’ substantive arguments.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.