US Loan Auditors USLA

[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

[pddadmin]

Public Document Distributors is soliciting for help in obtaining these case files. If you are close to this jurisdiction,
800 11th Street
Modesto, CA 95354

please contact us: Davi@PublicDocumentDistributors.com


Case Number: 399238
Case Caption: CRUZ, CONSTANTINO VS US LOAN AUDITORS
Case Type: SCDate Filed: 2010-04-27
Case Status: OPEN

[pddadmin]

USLA sued Robert Jackson for defamation and other causes for protesting in front of their company headquarters

On, Wednesday, July 7,2010, Defendant again parked approximately 300
25 yards adjacent to Plaintiffs property on the street at 9:00 a.m. and begin
26 to harass Plaintiffs employees and customers. Defendant flagged down
27 and pulled over new and old customers and talked about how "USLA is a

scam and not helping people." Defendant left at 4:00 p.m. Defendant

[pddadmin]

This space reserved for more documents for USLA v Jackson

[pddadmin]

Cori Ann Stroud sued USLA and US Legal advisors for fraud and breach of contract

Why does the Defendant owe the Plaintiff money?
US Legal Advisors collected up front fees and provided no services. They were draft and file a federal lawsuit with in 2 weeks against my mortgage company with violations discovered from a forensic loan audit provided by their sister company US Loan Auditors. The company was misrepresented

Why does the Defendant owe the Plaintiff money? Us Loan Auditors representitive stated they will provide an accurate and professional analysis of my loan scenario and loan documentation "a forensic loan audit" with a 100% money back guarantee. They misrepresented what my options, remedies, time frames, the company offers, expectations and the legal process was totally false. I was provided an incomplete/inaccurate loan audit.