Billy Z. Barley 2144 Wembley Lane Corona, California 92881 Contact: (714) 615-4956 Email: bze2101@aol.com a WY 62 190 8102 aad Automey for Plaintiff Appearances in Propria Persona UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) CASE No.: 5:18-ev-1611-DOC-SP BILLY Z. EARLEY ) ) PLAINTIFF'S OPTIONAL REPLY Plaintiff, ) BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF A v. ) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) AGAINST DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; ) MR. COOPER; and Does 1 to 10, ) Filed Concurrently with Memorandum of inclusive, ) Points and Authorities, Declaration of ) Billy Earley, and Request For Judicial Defendant, ) Notice in Supportive of Granting Order. ) TO THE HONORABLE COURT: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES on November 5, 2018, at the United States District Court for the Central District, Located at 411 South 4th Street, Room 9D, Santa Ana, California 90271, at 8:30 a.m., Billy Earley (“Plaintiff”) will move this Court to rule in favor of a Preliminary Injunction Order against Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (“Defendant”) pursuant to Rule 65(b) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 7-19 and L.R. 65-1. PLAINTIFF'S OPTIONAL REPLY BRIEF FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONI. BRIEF INTRODUCTION On October 24, 2018, Plaintiff was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) against Defendant, ordering them to withdraw a $11,659 dollar fraudulent debt from Shellpoint Mortgage Servicers, amongst other orders. Plaintiff claim that Defendant unlawfully created said debt by deliberately and intentionally rejecting Federal Assistance awarded to Plaintiff's family for 18 months. ‘The Eligibility Agency named Keep Your Home California (“KYHC”) has a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC, which provides clarity of the roles between “KYHC” and “Nationstar Mortgage LLC.” KYHC is responsible for determining the eligibility of Federal Awarded recipients; however, Defendant can refer any recipient to KYHC if they believe that a qualification or determination issue exists, according to the MOU. The problem started in October of 2017 after Plaintiff received a cancellation notice from KYHC stating that Defendant stopped accepting the Federal Grant award and did not give any reason. Plaintiff reached out to his point of contact at KYHC named Kirsten, and she said, “Your loan servicer is refusing to accept the payments and we have reached out to them but they have not replied” (See FAC pg. 6 { 20.) KYHC attempted to contact Defendant from mid-October until late November of 2017, without any luck or success. PLAINTIFF'S OPTIONAL BRIEF FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION1 20 2 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff was informed by KYHC to contact Defendant and inquire why they were not accepting the Federal Assistance funds. Plaintiff was intentionally misled by Defendant’s employees Christine and John, citing the reason for rejecting the Federal Assistance because Plaintiff was in “active” bankruptcy and then changing their story to not having a “closed” bankruptcy. (See FAC pg.7 4 28-30.) Plaintiff questioned Defendant as to why were they interfering with a Federal Government Program by virtue of not accepting the funding assistance without providing any Notice, Letter, or and Written Document supporting their actions. Plaintiff was shocked after he got suspicious of Defendant's activities and he asked Defendant employee named Eric, “What do you see in my file?” Eric said, “I. Obtain approval to proceed with the assistance despite the bankruptcy, and 2. We have contacted the State and informed them that we can accept the assistance.” (See FAC pg.7 { 31.) Plaintiff requested an investigation into finding out why State approval was required and why Defendants were not contacting KYHC, the Eligibility Agency. The investigation was never done! To make a long story short, Plaintiff was informed by at least 5 of Defendant’s employees that they did not know the name of the “State” agency contacted, or the name of the “State” actors they were contacting, and more disturbingly, Plaintiff was informed that the Defendants’ had no way of discovering the name of the employee(s) who wrote and/or documented these remarks and even worse, there was “No” way of identifying any of these people, a complete cover-up. PLAINTIFF'S OPTIONAL BRIEF FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION