top of page


Jubelt: Civil Action No. 13-7150 (ES)(MAH) 6/20/15  


Civil Action No. 13-7150 (ES) (MAH) OPINION & ORDER

This action arises out of a residential loan refinancing transaction entered into by Plaintiff John Jubelt. Before the Court are motions to dismiss by Defendants United Northern Bankers, Ltd. (“United Northern”), (D.E. No. 40), and Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America” or “BANA”), (D.E. No. 41). The Court decides these motions without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons below, Bank of America’s motion is granted. United Northern’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.


Plaintiff’s Allegations of Forgery

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains allegations that the signatures on Plaintiff’s Loan - 28 -

Case 2:13-cv-07150-ES-MAH Document 51 Filed 06/30/15 Page 29 of 29 PageID: 734

Application and Truth-In-Lending statement are not his, and that they were therefore forged without his knowledge or consent. (Am. Compl., Factual Background ¶ 32). In his opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Plaintiff argues that “[w]hat the forgery does, however, is further support the departure from the appropriate lending standards including, but not limited to FHA’s guidelines, and due diligence that should have been conducted by United and BOA.” (Pl. Opp. Br. at 40). However, Plaintiff’s asserted claims do not allege liability stemming from a departure from FHA guidelines or failure to conduct due diligence. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that either Defendant forged the documents; he simply states that “thus the signatures are forgeries.” (Id.). Neither Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint nor his opposition brief explain how this allegation ties to the claims asserted in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations and arguments regarding the alleged forgery do not alter the outcome of any of Plaintiff’s claims.


For the reasons above, Bank of America’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, (D.E. No. 41), is granted and United Northern’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, (D.E. No. 40), is granted in part and denied in part.

Accordingly, it is on this 30th day of June 2015, hereby

ORDERED that Bank of America’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. No. 41), is granted as to Counts 1-6 without prejudice; and it is further


> Return to Case Studies

bottom of page