View Single Post
  #4  
Old 07-11-2010, 06:38 PM
pddadmin pddadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default DHI vs US Loan Auditors

DHI a Home loan company, Sued US Loan Auditors for Defamation and interference in relation to advertisements US Loan auditors was using to solicit for clients who may have been in default of their mortgages

Quote:
8 The Mailing was designed to appear as if it came from a government agency,
with a supposed form number ("Form 008-1"), a layout and font similar to that used by federal

agencies including the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Housing and Urban

Quote:
9 The Mailing listed "US Loan Auditors" as "Investigator," implying that a
A competent authority had appointed it as such, qnd omitting Defendant US Loan Auditors LLC's
5 corporate designation, to further mislead the recipients into believing that the notice was sent
6 by a government entity Defendants' very names (US Loan Auditors and US Legal Advisors) are
7 by their nature misleading, and their use in connection with this ruse was and is, upon
8 information and belief, designed to mislead recipients of the Mailing and lend credibility to the

9 defamatory statements therein.



Quote:
The Mailing falsely and misleadmgly implies that Defendant US Loan Auditors is
1 3 or was conducting an official investigation of DHI and that DHI engaged in predatory lending
14 12 The Mailing, combined with Defendants' television advertisements, some of
15 which are available on corporate Defendants' websites (http //www usloanouditors.com/ and
i
16 fiftp //www us/ega/aaV/sors com/), falsely communicate that certain of DHI's loan products,

1 7 such as adjustable rate mortgages, are by their nature predatory and therefore actionable



Quote:
Plaintiff is informed and believes that each Defendant, and all of them,
knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to mislead and defraud the recipients of the Mailing, and to defame DHI




Quote:
DHI has diligently attempted to serve US Loan and US Legal through their agents for
20 service of process on the State of California's Business Portal statements for Defendants.
21 Despite its reasonable efforts and due diligence attempts to personally serve US Loan and US
22 Legal, DHI has been unable to locate either agent for service of process, Mr. Pulvino for US
23 Loan and Mr. Sandison for US Legal, at the address designated. When DHI attempted service
24 on Mr. Pulvino, the current occupant informed DHI that Mr. Pulvino did not live there and the
25 current occupant did not know who Mr. Pulvino was. There is no additional or different
26 information provided for US Loan's agent for service of process. (Genshlea Decl. HH 6, 8.)
27 Further, it appears that any additional efforts by DHI to serve US Legal at the designated address will continue to be futile due to Mr. Sandison's attempts to evade service given that, on
more than one occasion, there were lights on in the home and a car outside, but no one would

answer the door when the process server attempted service. (Genshlea Decl. 11 7.)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf DHI vs US Loan Auditors.pdf (274.5 KB, 737 views)
File Type: pdf DHI Vs US loan aud Mem of Pts.pdf (147.7 KB, 701 views)
Reply With Quote