Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JUDITH J. MOFFIT * * v. * Civil No. JFM-09-2029 * BALTIMORE AMERICAN * MORTGAGE, ET AL. * * AND * * EDWIN K. RUBLE * * v. * Civil No. JFM-09-2028 * THE MORTGAGE CONSULTANTS, * INC., ET AL. * * AND * * LYNN A. FULMORE * * v. * Civil No. JFM-09-2056 * PREMIER FINANCIAL * CORPORATION, ET AL. * ********* OPINION

Each of these cases was removed to this court from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. In all the cases plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand. The motions will be denied. The material facts are the same in the three cases. Plaintiffs originally filed individual complaints alleging various violations of the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law. They amended their claim once in state court but added no class allegations in the amended complaint. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' claims on the ground that they were barred by Maryland's

1

three-year limitations statute. On appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Maryland's twelve-year limitations statute, rather than the three year limitations statute, applied. After the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion was issued, plaintiffs' counsel sent to defendants' counsel a draft Second Amended and Class Action Complaint ("Second Amended Class Action Complaint") and a covering letter stating that the Second Amended Class Action Complaint would be filed in the near future unless a settlement were reached. Believing that the allegations in the proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint met the requirements for the exercise of federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") and reasonably believing that the draft Second Amended Class Action Complaint and covering letter could be deemed to be "other paper[s]" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.

Download Edwin K. Ruble v. The Mortgage Consultants, Inc., et al. - Opinon.pdf

Maryland Law