Question For College assignment. Luther vs. Countrywide

LisaBlanner said:
I see various passages highlighted and some things titled "summaries from subsequent cases." Does this mean these particular points/decisions were influential or specifically used as precedent in this case?
Click to expand...

Just the opposite. The decision in Countrywide was precedential in the decisions of later cases involving removal to federal court. I don't think looking into subsequent cases would be helpful. The "Palisades" case that was cited had to do with collecting a debt, so not related at all to the Countrywide decision.

LisaBlanner said:
Any thoughts on what I might dig into to find a different opinion?
Click to expand...

I don't think looking for other case decisions is necessary. I think the assignment is just asking for your opinion as to whether you agree with the court's decision on denying removal.

And it doesn't have to be a complicated reason.

For example, I think the court was right in denying removal. I think that the Defendants attempted removal to federal court was a ploy to get an unfair advantage by making the litigation as inconvenient and costly to the Plaintiffs as possible when there was no reason for removal as both federal and state courts have equal jurisdiction over the subject matter.

But that's my personal cynicism showing. Those financial institutions screwed up millions of people and when the companies faltered they should have been allowed to fail and go out of business but the government bailed them out while their CEOs and upper executives pocketed millions of dollars instead of going to jail.

Considering the government bailouts I suspect that the Defendants may have felt that they would have an advantage in federal court over state court and took a shot at it.

Now, what do YOU think? :)
 
adjusterjack said:
Now, what do YOU think? :)
Click to expand...

Hi Jack,

We covered jurisdiction and venue this past week so I was soaking in as much as I could since it seemed the focus of this case. I was wracking my brain trying to figure out why Federal court would of been more beneficial to the defendant but I couldn't come up with a reason. Would you say making it expensive and lengthy for the plaintiff's was a ploy to get them to settle?

While it is apparent that Countrywide did knowingly extend ARMs to people that couldn't afford it, is it reasonable to believe government initiatives to get more people into homes bears some responsibility? Weren't these federally insured institutions under pressure from various administrations to make loans to these people, and as a result found a creative way to make money from it?

That doesn't come directly into play here but could that be a defense strategy for Countrywide?
 
LisaBlanner said:
I was wracking my brain trying to figure out why Federal court would of been more beneficial to the defendant but I couldn't come up with a reason. Would you say making it expensive and lengthy for the plaintiff's was a ploy to get them to settle?
Click to expand...

That's part of it. Read the following for the rest:

Whether to Sue or Defend in a State or Federal Court - FindLaw

LisaBlanner said:
While it is apparent that Countrywide did knowingly extend ARMs to people that couldn't afford it, is it reasonable to believe government initiatives to get more people into homes bears some responsibility? Weren't these federally insured institutions under pressure from various administrations to make loans to these people, and as a result found a creative way to make money from it?

That doesn't come directly into play here but could that be a defense strategy for Countrywide?
Click to expand...

There's no question that the looseness of government regulation of the lending industry contributed to the lending industry crisis but it cannot be a defense in the Luther case because that's not what the case is about.

The case is about Countrywide misrepresenting the qualify of the loans to secondary buyers of packages of loans.

"Luther alleges that the defendants violated sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l (a)(2) and 77o, by issuing false and misleading registration statements and prospectus supplements for the mortgage pass-through certificates. In particular, Luther alleges that the risk of the investments was much greater than represented by the registration statements and prospectus supplements, which omitted and misstated the credit worthiness of the underlying mortgage borrowers. Luther alleges that the value of the certificates has substantially declined since many of the underlying mortgage loans became uncollectible and he now seeks compensatory damages."
 
adjusterjack said:
That's part of it. Read the following for the rest:
Whether to Sue or Defend in a State or Federal Court - FindLaw
Click to expand...

The link you provided is very helpful. We are discussing diversity jurisdiction and alternate dispute resolutions (arbitration/mediation) this week. I think I can dovetail some of those points in there. My written assignment is short, but I also have have to give a presentation with more details (and follow up questions) so I want to be prepared. :)
 
"You come in here with a skull full of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer." (Professor Charles W Kingsfield Jr in "The Paper Chase." 1973)

How's that for starters? :)
 
Hi Jack,

When reading Section 22 of the Securities Act it specifically says it "provides for concurrent jurisdiction." Does this fall under the category of a "plain meaning rule"?
 
This thread is a good read.
I enjoy the back and forth, especially your civility.
Classic Socrates here, readers.
I applaud and commend you both.
Good luck on Thursday, Lisa.
Pease let us know you earned an "A" for your efforts.
 
Nothing dorky about your questions.

Your reach should exceed your grasp.

(Paraphrasing the poet: Robert Browning - "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what is heaven for?")
 
Went great guys :) This was one part of a bigger project which included short supplemental papers discussing specific issues, as well as comparing/contrasting overlapping issues in cases assigned to other students, etc. Exhausting but satisfying to complete.

I could only speculate on why Countrywide wanted the case heard in Federal court. My professor said it was because it is much more likely for a federal jury to sympathize with the "business crowd" than would be a jury in state court. This is me paraphrasing because he commented after I completed the presentation and I was so happy to be finished I didn't hear more details.
 
LisaBlanner said:
Went great guys :) This was one part of a bigger project which included short supplemental papers discussing specific issues, as well as comparing/contrasting overlapping issues in cases assigned to other students, etc. Exhausting but satisfying to complete.

I could only speculate on why Countrywide wanted the case heard in Federal court. My professor said it was because it is much more likely for a federal jury to sympathize with the "business crowd" than would be a jury in state court. This is me paraphrasing because he commented after I completed the presentation and I was so happy to be finished I didn't hear more details.
Click to expand...

Congrats, happy to hear you did well.
@adjusterjack helped you the most, so congrats to him for his student's success, too.
 
LisaBlanner said:
Went great guys :) This was one part of a bigger project which included short supplemental papers discussing specific issues, as well as comparing/contrasting overlapping issues in cases assigned to other students, etc. Exhausting but satisfying to complete.
Click to expand...

Did you get a grade, grasshopper*? What was it?

*Obscure reference to an old TV show "Kung Fu." After this scene the master calls the student "grasshopper" throughout the series.

 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top