Valdivieso v. PHH Mortgage Corporation as successor to Ocwen Loan Servicing

M.D. Florida

Valdivieso v. PHH Mortgage Corporation as successor to Ocwen Loan Servicing

DecidedMarch 13, 2025

Docket6:24-cv-01646

StatusUnknown

This text of Valdivieso v. PHH Mortgage Corporation as successor to Ocwen Loan Servicing (Valdivieso v. PHH Mortgage Corporation as successor to Ocwen Loan Servicing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valdivieso v. PHH Mortgage Corporation as successor to Ocwen Loan Servicing, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

United States District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division

CECILIA VALDIVIESO,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. 6:24-cv-1646-WWB-UAM

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC & PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Order In her response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff cites cases that appear non-existent. Doc. 27 at 3. For example: —The plaintiff states, “Heidler v. Jenkins, 211 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2000): The court held that a debt collector’s failure to respond to a validation request under the FDCPA constitutes a violation, allowing the plaintiff to seek statutory damages. This case underscores the importance of adhering to validation requirements and the consequences of non-compliance.” Doc. 27 at 3. —The plaintiff states, “Riley v. Midland Funding LLC, 720 F. Supp. 2d 251 (E.D. Pa. 2010): The court addressed the implications for debt collectors who fail to adhere to validation requirements, emphasizing that such failures can lead to legal penalties and the inability to continue collection efforts.” Doc. 27 at 3. —The plaintiff states, “Spears v. Brennan, 745 F.3d 332 (7th Cir. 2014): This case highlighted the necessity for debt collectors to provide timely and accurate validation of debts, reinforcing the consumer’s right to dispute and verify the debt.” Doc. 27 at 3. By April 7, 2025, the plaintiff must state whether these cases exist, and, if they do not, explain in detail why she cited them and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the Court’s inherent authority; or both for citing non-existent cases. Sanctions may include monetary sanctions or dismissal of the action.

In light of this order and the absence of a case management report or case management and scheduling order, the Court stays discovery to the extent the discovery period has begun. The Court will re-visit the stay and case management when addressing the response to this order or any renewed motions.

Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on March 13, 2025.

PATRICIA D. BARKSDALE United States Magistrate Judge

C: Cecilia Valdivieso 4302 Conroy Club Dr. Orlando, FL 32835

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division

CECILIA VALDIVIESO,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. 6:24-cv-1646-WWB-UAM

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC & PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Order In her response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff cites cases that appear non-existent. Doc. 27 at 3. For example: —The plaintiff states, “Heidler v. Jenkins, 211 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2000): The court held that a debt collector’s failure to respond to a validation request under the FDCPA constitutes a violation, allowing the plaintiff to seek statutory damages. This case underscores the importance of adhering to validation requirements and the consequences of non-compliance.” Doc. 27 at 3. —The plaintiff states, “Riley v. Midland Funding LLC, 720 F. Supp. 2d 251 (E.D. Pa. 2010): The court addressed the implications for debt collectors who fail to adhere to validation requirements, emphasizing that such failures can lead to legal penalties and the inability to continue collection efforts.” Doc. 27 at 3. —The plaintiff states, “Spears v. Brennan, 745 F.3d 332 (7th Cir. 2014): This case highlighted the necessity for debt collectors to provide timely and accurate validation of debts, reinforcing the consumer’s right to dispute and verify the debt.” Doc. 27 at 3. By April 7, 2025, the plaintiff must state whether these cases exist, and, if they do not, explain in detail why she cited them and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the Court’s inherent authority; or both for citing non-existent cases. Sanctions may include monetary sanctions or dismissal of the action.

In light of this order and the absence of a case management report or case management and scheduling order, the Court stays discovery to the extent the discovery period has begun. The Court will re-visit the stay and case management when addressing the response to this order or any renewed motions.

Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on March 13, 2025.

PATRICIA D. BARKSDALE United States Magistrate Judge

C: Cecilia Valdivieso 4302 Conroy Club Dr. Orlando, FL 32835

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Valdivieso v. PHH Mortgage Corporation as successor to Ocwen Loan Servicing, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdivieso-v-phh-mortgage-corporation-as-successor-to-ocwen-loan-servicing-flmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack