Forde v. PHH Mortgage Corporation
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-04090
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Forde v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, Judge Halpern denied Forde’s motion to strike the defendants’ attorney and terminated the pending motion.
Glenn Forde, PHH Mortgage Corporation, Raspreet Bhatia, David F. Everett, County of Westchester, and attorney Miranda R. Onnen, whose authority to appear Forde challenged.
What happened
In Forde v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, Glenn Forde asked the court to remove attorney Miranda R. Onnen from the case. Forde argued that the record did not show Onnen had authority to represent the defendants.
Forde also argued that statements by an attorney were not evidence and challenged the legal basis for actions involving a property described in the filings. His motion asked the court to require proof of the attorney’s authority and to strike filings if that proof was not provided.
Judge Philip Halpern denied the application to strike the attorney. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion sequence at docket entry 15.
The detailed version
- Forde v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · No. 7:23-cv-04090
- Philip Halpern
- July 21, 2023
Background
Glenn Forde filed a motion titled “Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike for No Standing.” The filings identify the defendants as PHH Mortgage Corporation, Raspreet Bhatia, David F. Everett, and County of Westchester. Forde challenged attorney Miranda R. Onnen’s authority to appear for defendants.
The filings state that Forde believed the record did not show delegated authority for Onnen to represent a defendant and asked the court to require the attorney to provide proof of authority. Forde requested that Onnen be barred from appearing and that filings submitted by the attorney be stricken if the requested proof was not supplied.
Forde’s supporting materials also discussed a foreclosure action involving property described as 230 Hamilton Avenue in New Rochelle, New York, and raised arguments about jurisdiction, statutory definitions, evidence, and the authority of persons involved in the foreclosure proceedings. Those materials included arguments that attorney statements in briefs were not admissible evidence.
Ruling
The court’s order states: “Application to strike attorney denied.” The clerk was directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at docket entry 15. The opinion text does not state that the court reached or decided Forde’s underlying foreclosure-related arguments.
Effect of the order
The ruling denied Forde’s request to strike Miranda R. Onnen from appearing based on the asserted lack of authority. The order, as provided, does not impose the requested bar on the attorney or strike the attorney’s filings.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.