US Loan Auditors USLA

[pddadmin]

This thread will display the lawsuits and related documents for a loan auditing company named US Loan Auditors

[pddadmin]

Corren Chang Sued US Loan Auditors for wrongful termination and in violation of public policy (Whistle Blower)

7. The Plaintiff's job duties as a an Account
Executive/Fraud Investigator (sales representatives) consisted as
a of calling customers from multiple sources that were provided
to the Plaintiff by Defendant US Loan Auditors to attempt to
enlist them into a contract to perform forensic loan auditing and
to then enlist them into a contract for legal services with US
Legal Advisors which was a branch of US Loan Auditors. This work
was a part of the regular business of US Loan Auditors. The
Plaintiff was instructed to enlist these customers into a
contract with the other branch of Defendant Employer; US Legal
Advisors. Among the mandatory rules, procedures and
requirements, and/or characteristics of the Plaintiff's job were
the following:
a. There were no special skills required for this sales
position;
b. All the Plaintiff's daily activities were.under the

direct control of her supervisor;

u. US Loan Auditors had the ability to fire the sales
20 reps; evinced by the fact that the Plaintiff was fired
21 on October 9, 2009, because, she was informed by the
22 principals, she was too aggressive in speaking up for

23 the customers who were being defrauded.

11. The Plaintiff disclosed to the Defendant Employer what
she reasonably believed were violations of state and/or federal
statutes, and/or noncompliance with state and/or federal
regulations as follows:
a. That there was improper/illegal acts between Defendant
US Loan and US Legal Advisors that were conflicts in
interest and detrimental to the customers;
b. That fraud was being committed by Defendants against
the customers of US Loan and US Legal Advisors on a
daily basis;
c. That Defendant US Loan was committing, and/or
conspiring to commit with US Legal Advisors violations
of the prohibition of attorneys/non-attorneys sharing
fees;

d. That there were violations of Business & Professions

Code § 17200, et seq., and Penal Code § 484 (theft);
2 e. That customers were charged fees and no work was done
3 on their accounts;
4 f. That excessive fees were charged to customers knowing
5 that the promised work for these exorbitant fees would
6 never be accomplished;
7 g. That a disbarred attorney was providing legal advice;
8 with at least one customer asserting that said
9 disbarred attorney was this customers' attorney;
10 h. That an attorney for US Loan Auditors was illegally
11 asserting a property interest in a customer's property.
12 I. That funds/money/assets were being illegally co-
13 mingled; and,
14 j. That other illegal and non-compliant activities were
15 taking place on a daily basis.
16 12. In retaliation for disclosing what she reasonably
17 believed were violations of state and/or federal statutes and/or
18 non-compliance with state and/or federal regulations, Chang was
19 wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy on/about

20 October 9, 2009

[pddadmin]

Reserved for more documents RE Chang vs US Loan Auditors

[pddadmin]

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

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

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.

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

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

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.)

[pddadmin]

Reserved for more documents from DHI vs US Loan Auditors

[pddadmin]

US Loan Auditors filed suit Nicholaus T'Souvas to compel his wage claims be arbitrated in private instead of the California State Labor Commissioner

5. On or about January 12, 2010, T'Souvas filed an administrative wage claim

19 with the Labor Commissioner challenging US Loan Auditors' alleged failure to pay
20 T'Souvas certain commissions. Proceeding before the Labor Commissioner is improper
21 both because T'Souvas was an independent contractor not an employee, and because

22

T'Souvas is required to arbitrate this claim pursuant to Section 13 of the Contract. See
23 Whaley Decl., Exhibit A, Section 13. Even if T'Souvas were an employee, by entering into
24
the predispute Contract that includes an arbitration clause that governs "any dispute arising
25 out of" the Contract, a contract also governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§

^)f\ 1, et seq., T'Souvas waived his right to bring a claim before the Labor Commissioner

promised rate of compensation of:
Commissions of 50% of the upfront fees charged to borrowers less $695.00.

Commissions earned February 24, 2009 to July 3, 2009 at 50% of the upfront fees charged to borrowers less $695 00, claiming

$10,663.75 less $2,270.00 paid. Balance claimed due: $8,393.75. See the attached Exhibit A.

Independent Contractor is to be compensated on a commission basis only. If the Indcpendent Contractor's efforts result in the client ordering a loan audit through US Loan Auditors and legal processing through US Legal Advisors, the commission shall be 50% of the up front fee charged to the borrower for The loan audit less administrative expenses (currently S695), to be paid within 30 days of the payment from the Client and clearing US Loan Auditor's account.

By way of example, if the audit fee was $2695. the resulting commission would equal $1000