Henok v. Chase Home Finance, LLC , 925 F. Supp. 2d 46 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    _______________________________
    )
    ARAYA HENOK,                    )
    )
    Plaintiff,                 )
    )
    v.                         )   Civil Action No. 12-292 (RWR)
    )
    CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,        )
    et al.,                         )
    )
    Defendants.                )
    _______________________________)
    AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
    Pro se plaintiff Araya Henok brings this action against
    Chase Home Finance, LLC (“Chase”), Shapiro & Burson, LLP
    (“Shapiro”), and Fannie Mae, challenging the legality of the
    foreclosure on a property he owned on C Street S.E. in
    Washington, D.C. (“the property”).   Henok moves for partial
    summary judgment against Chase arguing that Chase was not the
    note holder at the time of the foreclosure, and that Chase and
    Shapiro failed to send to Henok valid notice of default and
    notice of foreclosure.   Henok also moves to strike Shapiro’s
    opposition to his motion for partial summary judgment, and moves
    for sanctions against Chase and Shapiro and their counsel.
    Because Henok has failed to show that he is entitled to judgment
    as a matter of law, his motions for partial summary judgment will
    be denied and judgment as to the notice of default will be
    entered for Chase since the undisputed material facts entitle it
    to such a judgment as a matter of law.   Because Henok has also
    -2-
    failed to show that Shapiro’s motion should be stricken under
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the motion to strike will
    be denied.   Because Henok has not met the requirements of Rule 11
    or shown that the defendants committed sanctionable conduct,
    Henok’s motions for sanctions will be denied.
    BACKGROUND
    Henok purchased the property in 2007 with financing from JP
    Morgan Chase Bank (“JPMC”).    Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J.
    (“Pl.’s First Summ. J. Mot.”) ¶¶ 1-3, Ex. 1; Defs. Chase & FNMA’s
    Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“Chase’s
    Opp’n to Pl.’s First Summ. J. Mot.”) at 2.   In August of 2009,
    Chase returned his monthly payment and “stated that [his]
    property [was] going into foreclosure.”    Am. Compl. ¶ 8; Mem. of
    Law in Opp’n to Pl.’s Second Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“Chase’s
    Opp’n to Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot.”) ¶ 7.   Fannie Mae bought the
    property in a foreclosure sale on November 18, 2009.   Pl.’s First
    Summ. J. Mot. ¶ 6; Chase’s Opp’n to Pl.’s First Summ. J. Mot. at
    3.
    Henok filed a complaint in D.C. Superior Court challenging
    the foreclosure in February 2012 and the defendants removed the
    case to federal court and answered the complaint.   Henok v. Chase
    Home Finance, Civil Action No. 12-292 (RWR), 
    2013 WL 151173
    , at
    *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 15, 2013).    Henok moved for partial summary
    judgment arguing that JPMC never transferred the note to Chase
    -3-
    and that because Chase was not the noteholder at the time of the
    foreclosure sale, the foreclosure is void.    Pl.’s First Summ. J.
    Mot. at 2, 4.   After Chase and Shapiro opposed the first motion
    for partial summary judgment, Henok moved to strike Shapiro’s
    opposition arguing that Shapiro was “responding to issues
    directly and exclusively dealing with [Chase].”   Pl.’s Mot. to
    Strike Def. Shapiro’s Opp’n to Partial Summ. J. at 1.   Henok then
    moved again for partial summary judgment arguing that Chase and
    Shapiro breached the contract by failing to provide notice of
    default and failing to mail to the correct address the notice of
    foreclosure.    Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Second
    Summ. J. Mot.”) at 6-9.   Further, Henok moved for sanctions
    against Chase’s attorneys, Shapiro’s attorneys, Chase employee
    Kevin Johnson and Shapiro employee Brett Callahan arguing that
    Chase and Shapiro made intentionally false representations with
    regard to their receipt of Henok’s letters requesting cure
    amounts.   Mot. for Sanctions Against Chase at 1-3; Mot. for
    Sanctions Against Shapiro at 1-3.
    DISCUSSION
    I.   PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    Summary judgment is warranted on an individual claim or part
    of a claim if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
    fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).    “A party asserting that a fact cannot be
    -4-
    or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . .
    citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including
    . . . documents, . . .      declarations, . . . or other materials;
    or . . . showing that the materials cited do not establish the
    absence or presence of a genuine dispute[.]”     Fed. R. Civ. P.
    56(c)(1).    A party may not rely merely upon denials in pleadings
    to show a genuine dispute, but must come forward with specific
    evidence that reveals a genuine factual dispute.      Rogers v.
    District of Columbia, 
    880 F. Supp. 2d 163
    , 165-66 (D.D.C. 2012);
    Ali v. District of Columbia Gov’t, 
    810 F. Supp. 2d 78
    , 82-83
    (D.D.C. 2011).     At the summary judgment stage, “‘[t]he evidence
    of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable
    inferences are to be drawn in his favor.’”      Feirson v. District
    of Columbia, 
    506 F.3d 1063
    , 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting
    Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 
    477 U.S. 242
    , 248 (1986)).
    Where there are no disputed facts to resolve regarding a claim,
    and it is the non-movant that is entitled to judgment as a matter
    of law, judgment may be entered for the non-movant on that cause
    of action.     Henok v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, Civil Action No.
    12-335 (RWR), 
    2013 WL 525696
    , at *4 (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2013).
    A.      First motion
    Henok moves for partial summary judgment that Chase’s
    foreclosure was void arguing that Chase was not the note holder
    when Henok’s property was foreclosed because JPMC, the maker of
    the note, never transferred the note to Chase or recorded such a
    -5-
    transfer.   Pl.’s First Summ. J. Mot. at 2, 4.   Henok relies on
    
    D.C. Code § 47-1431
     which requires that:
    [w]ithin 30 days after . . . an economic interest in real
    property is transferred, . . . all transferees of . . . and
    all holders of the security interest in real property shall
    record a fully acknowledged copy of the deed . . . with the
    Recorder of Deeds of the District of Columbia.
    
    D.C. Code § 47
    –1431(a) (2001).    From this provision, Henok
    concludes that Chase was obligated to record the transfer of the
    mortgage from JPMC to Chase in order to legally foreclose Henok’s
    property.
    Both Chase and Shapiro argue that no failure to record the
    assignment from JPMC to Chase would undermine the validity of the
    foreclosure sale or entitle Henok to judgment as a matter of law.
    Chase’s Opp’n to Pl.’s First Summ. J. Mot. at 5-7; Def. Shapiro’s
    Opp’n to Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“Shapiro’s Opp’n to Pl.’s
    First Summ. J. Mot.”) at 4-7.    Chase and Shapiro principally rely
    on Leake v. Prensky, 
    798 F. Supp. 2d 254
     (D.D.C. 2011).     In that
    case, the plaintiff purchased property with financing from B.F.
    Saul Mortgage Co., but, at the time of the foreclosure, Capital
    One was the holder of the note.     Leake, 
    798 F. Supp. 2d at 256
    .
    The plaintiff challenged the foreclosure arguing that the
    defendants failed to record the assignment of the interest from
    B.F. Saul Mortgage Co. to Capital One.     The court found that B.F.
    Saul Mortgage Co. had properly negotiated the note to Chevy Chase
    Bank, and Capital One had purchased Chevy Chase Bank and become
    the holder of the note.   The court found the transfer of the note
    -6-
    valid because Capital One became the holder of the note when the
    transfer of possession occurred.      
    Id. at 257
    .   Capital One could
    enforce the note’s foreclosure provision, despite not complying
    with the recordation requirement, because “[t]he D.C. Code
    provides that ‘[t]ransfer of an instrument, whether or not the
    transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of
    the transferor to enforce the instrument,’ 
    D.C. Code § 28:3
    –203(b), and under D.C. law the Note's transfer carries
    with it the security for its payment.”      Leake, 
    798 F. Supp. 2d at 257
    .   Because Capital One sufficiently complied with the
    foreclosure sale requirements in 
    D.C. Code § 42-815
    (b), the court
    found that the foreclosure sale was valid.     Further, the court
    cited the D.C. Attorney General’s December 17, 2010 statement
    which stated that “‘a noteholder's right to foreclose does not
    depend on compliance with the recordation obligations set forth
    in D.C. Official Code § 47–1431(a).’”      Leake, 
    798 F. Supp. 2d at 258
     (quoting District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General,
    Statement of Enforcement Intent Regarding Completed Foreclosure
    Sales (Dec. 17, 2010), http://oag.dc.gov/DC/OAG/About+OAG/News+Ro
    om/Press+Releases/Foreclosure+Statement+-+Completed+Sales).      The
    Leake court concluded that “[a]lthough the transfer of
    instruments may be governed by recordation requirements, failure
    to meet those requirements will not in and of itself invalidate a
    foreclosure proceeding.”   Id.; see also Grant II v. BAC Home
    Loans Servicing, Civil Action No. 10-1543 (RLW), 
    2011 WL 4566135
    ,
    -7-
    at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2011) (stating that “D.C. law does not
    require that a transfer of a Deed of Trust be recorded in order
    to be effective”).
    Moreover, Henok has not shown the absence of genuinely
    disputed material facts.    Henok argues that the transfer to Chase
    never occurred.   However, Chase has provided an allonge which
    identifies Henok’s mortgage by loan amount and loan number and
    states that the mortgage was transferred from JPMC to Chase on
    April 16, 2007.   Defs. Chase and FNMA’s Supp. to Mem. of Law in
    Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“Chase’s Supp.”),
    Ex. 1.    Henok in turn questions the validity of the allonge,
    thereby deepening the very factual dispute at the heart of his
    partial summary judgment motion.       Because Henok has not shown
    that there is no dispute as to a material fact or that he is
    entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim, Henok’s
    first motion for partial summary judgment will be denied.
    B.     Second motion
    Henok’s second motion for partial summary judgment argues in
    part that Chase never gave him the required advance notice of
    default, Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot. at 6-7, and that he never
    received such a notice, id. at 7-9.      The deed of trust securing
    Henok’s mortgage required Chase before foreclosing to “give
    notice to Borrower . . . [that] shall specify (a) the default;
    (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a date, not less
    than 30 days from the date the notice is given to Borrower, by
    -8-
    which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to cure the
    default on or before the date specified in the notice may result
    in acceleration of the sums secured by this Security Instrument
    and sale of the Property.”   Id., Ex. 3 ¶ 22.    The deed also
    provided that “[a]ll notices given by Borrower or Lender in
    connection with this Security Instrument must be in writing.      Any
    notice to Borrower in connection with this Security instrument
    shall be deemed to have been given to Borrower when mailed by
    first class mail or when actually delivered to Borrower's notice
    address if sent by other means.”   Id., Ex. 3 ¶ 15.
    These provisions impose a duty upon Chase to “give notice”
    of default to Henok.   Here, Chase supplied with its opposition to
    Henok’s motion a declaration under the penalty of perjury from
    its Assistant Secretary and Operations Unit Manager that Chase
    indeed gave Henok advance notice of default that fully complied
    with the requirements of the deed of trust.     The declaration
    attaches a copy of a letter Chase sent Henok on August 4, 2009 to
    his address at 1800 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
    20001, advising Henok “[y]ou are in default because you have
    failed to pay the required monthly installments [since]
    6/1/2009"; “[y]ou must pay [$6,468.48] within thirty-two days
    . . . in order to cure this default”; and “[i]f you fail to cure
    the default . . ., Chase Home Finance LLC will accelerate the
    maturity of the Loan, . . . and commence foreclosure
    proceedings[.]”   Chase’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot.,
    -9-
    Ex. 1 ¶ 3, Ex. B.   This notice of default was sent to Henok after
    Henok informed Chase in a 2008 letter that his address was 1800
    New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001, id., Ex. 1 ¶ 2,
    Ex. A, and before Henok first allegedly informed Chase in an
    August 13, 2009 letter of his new address on New Hampshire
    Avenue, N.W., Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot. ¶ 12, Ex. 4.   Therefore,
    the August 4, 2009 notice of default was addressed to Henok’s
    “last known address” before Henok allegedly sent Chase a notice
    changing his address to the New Hampshire Avenue address.
    Henok has not rebutted this evidence that Chase gave the
    notice of default required by the deed in the way the deed
    allowed it to be given.   Henok may not simply rely upon denials
    to raise a genuine dispute of fact about whether Chase complied
    with its duty to provide notice of default.   Because there are no
    disputed facts to resolve regarding that duty, and it is Chase
    that is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, judgment will be
    entered for Chase on that cause of action.    See Henok v. Chase
    Home Finance, LLC, 
    2013 WL 525696
    , at *4.
    Henok’s second motion for partial summary judgment further
    argues that neither Chase nor Shapiro ever sent the required
    advance notice of foreclosure to him at his correct address,
    Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot. at 6-7, 9; Ex. 1, and that he never
    received a copy of the notice of foreclosure recorded on
    October 15, 2009, id. at 7-9.   The deed of trust securing Henok’s
    mortgage states that if Chase sought to conduct a foreclosure
    -10-
    sale, Chase was required to “send written notice as prescribed by
    Applicable Law to Borrower[.]”    Id., Ex. 3 ¶ 22.     Under D.C. law
    in effect at the time of the foreclosure, the holder of a note
    had to give written notice to the owner of the property at least
    30 days in advance of any foreclosure sale at the borrower’s
    “last known address[.]”   
    D.C. Code § 42-815
    (b) (2001).      Further,
    the deed provides that when the lender sends a notice to the
    borrower, “[t]he notice address shall be the Property Address
    unless Borrower has designated a substitute notice address by
    notice to Lender.”   Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot., Ex. 3 ¶ 15.
    The dispute centers on whether Chase sent Henok the notice
    of foreclosure at his last known address.      Henok provides a copy
    of a letter that he says he sent to Chase by certified mail on
    August 13, 2009 notifying Chase that his new mailing address was
    “908 New Hampshire Ave, NW #400, Washington D.C. 20037.”        Pl.’s
    Second Summ. J. Mot. ¶ 12, Ex. 4.       He provides with it copies of
    the accompanying certified mail receipt and the signed return
    receipt acknowledging delivery on August 17, 2009.      Chase
    responds that Henok’s 2008 letter informing Chase of his change
    of address to the one on New Jersey Avenue was the last notice of
    a change of address that Chase received from the plaintiff.
    Chase’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot. at 8, Ex. 1 ¶ 2,
    Ex. A.   Shapiro also argues that the notice of foreclosure was
    proper claiming that it was sent to Henok at his last known
    address.   Shapiro Opp’n to Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot. at 5-6.
    -11-
    Chase and Shapiro have submitted declarations under penalty of
    perjury which state that the business records of each party
    reflect that those parties did not receive Henok’s August 13,
    2009 notice that his address had changed to 908 New Hampshire
    Ave., N.W.     Chase’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot., Ex. 1,
    ¶ 7; Shapiro’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot., Ex. A,
    ¶ 4(g), (j).    Therefore, Chase and Shapiro argue that they sent
    proper notice to Henok’s last known address by sending it to the
    New Jersey Avenue address.     Chase’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Second Summ.
    J. Mot. at 7-9; Shapiro’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot. at
    5-7.
    The defendants’ responses are curious.   Chase makes no
    effort to explain why a New Hampshire Avenue address appears on
    its notice of foreclosure if Chase did not receive the change of
    address notice reflecting a New Hampshire Avenue address.1
    Shapiro asserts in a one-sentence footnote without any further
    elaboration that the New Hampshire Avenue address on the
    foreclosure notice was the mailing address for the property
    listed on the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue website.    Whatever
    the answer may be to these mysteries, Henok has not shown that
    summary judgment is appropriate because there is a genuine issue
    of material fact: whether Chase received the change of address
    notice which would have required Chase to send the notice of
    1
    Just as curiously, the address on the foreclosure notice
    is “918” New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., not the “908” New Hampshire
    Avenue, N.W. address reflected in Henok’s letter.
    -12-
    foreclosure to the 908 New Hampshire Avenue address.    Because the
    evidence of the defendants is to be believed at this stage, and
    all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in their favor,
    summary judgment on this issue is not appropriate.   Therefore,
    Henok’s second motion for partial summary judgment will be denied
    as to this claim.
    II.   MOTION TO STRIKE
    Henok moves to strike Shapiro’s opposition to Henok’s first
    motion for partial summary judgment.   Henok’s motion simply
    states “[Shapiro] is responding to issues directly and
    exclusively dealing with [Chase].”    Pl.’s Mot. to Strike Def.
    Shapiro’s Opp’n to Partial Summ. J. at 1.
    A motion to strike is governed by Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 12(f), which permits a court to “strike from a pleading
    an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
    impertinent, or scandalous matter.”    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
    “‘The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is committed
    to the trial judge’s sound discretion.’”    NCB Mgmt Servs., Inc.,
    v. FDIC, 
    843 F. Supp. 2d 62
    , 72 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Fed. Trade
    Comm’n v. Cantkier, 
    767 F. Supp. 2d 147
    , 159-60 (D.D.C. 2011)).
    “A court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion to strike;
    however, striking portions of a pleading is a drastic remedy, and
    motions to strike are disfavored.”    Uzlyan v. Solis, 
    706 F. Supp. 2d 44
    , 51 (D.D.C. 2010).
    -13-
    Rule 7(a) lists the filings that constitute pleadings, but
    “motions, affidavits, briefs and other documents [are] outside of
    the pleadings” and are not subject to being stricken.2   5C
    Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1380
    (3d ed. Supp. 2012).   Here, Henok moves to strike Shapiro’s
    opposition to his motion for partial summary judgment.   However,
    an opposition is not a pleading under Rule 7(a) and is not
    subject to being stricken under Rule 12(f).   Further, Henok’s
    motion does not provide sufficient grounds to justify this
    “disfavored” and “drastic remedy[.]”   Therefore, the motion to
    strike Shapiro’s opposition will be denied.
    III. SANCTIONS
    Henok moves under Rule 11(b) for sanctions against Chase’s
    attorneys, Shapiro’s attorneys, Chase employee Kevin Johnson and
    Shapiro employee Brett Callahan arguing that Chase and Shapiro
    made intentionally false representations to the court.   Rule 11
    sanctions may be imposed where a party files a pleading, motion
    or other paper with the court for an improper purpose, that is
    unwarranted by existing law, or that is lacking in evidentiary
    support.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1)-(3).   “‘[T]he district court
    is accorded wide discretion’ in determining whether sanctions are
    appropriate.”    Gomez v. Aragon, 
    705 F. Supp. 2d 21
    , 23 n.2
    2
    In this district, “affidavits and declarations filed in
    support of technical pleadings” may also be struck under Rule
    12(f). Cobell v. Norton, 
    224 F.R.D. 1
    , 2 (D.D.C. 2004); Judicial
    Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 
    224 F.R.D. 261
    , 263 n.1
    (D.D.C. 2004).
    -14-
    (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 
    770 F.2d 1168
    ,
    1174 (D.C. Cir. 1985)).   “‘Rule 11 sanctions are an extreme
    punishment for filing pleadings that frustrate judicial
    proceedings.’”   Brown v. FBI, 
    873 F. Supp. 2d 388
    , 408 (D.D.C.
    2012) (quoting Wasserman v. Rodacker, Civil Action No. 06-1005
    (RWR), 
    2007 WL 2071649
    , at *7 (D.D.C. July 18, 2007)).     “‘The
    test [for sanctions] under Rule 11 is an objective one: that is,
    whether a reasonable inquiry would have revealed that there was
    no basis in law or fact for the asserted claim.’”   Sharp v. Rosa
    Mexicano, D.C., LLC, 
    496 F. Supp. 2d 93
    , 100 (D.D.C. 2007)
    (quoting Reynolds v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 
    357 F. Supp. 2d 19
    ,
    23 (D.D.C. 2004)).   Further, Rule 11 includes a “safe harbor
    provision” which requires that the motion must be first served on
    the non-movant to allow an opportunity to withdraw the challenged
    assertion.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).   “This procedural rule must
    be satisfied before the Court considers the substantive aspects
    of plaintiff’s motion.”   Brown, 873 F. Supp. 2d at 408.
    The essence of Henok’s argument is that Chase and Shapiro
    falsely represented that they never received Henok’s letters3
    regarding the property, that these defendants’ attorneys “failed
    to do any reasonable inquiry” as to whether Henok’s letters were
    delivered, Mot. for Sanctions Against Chase at 1-2; Mot. for
    3
    Henok specifies that he is referring to correspondence to
    Chase from August 2009 to December 2009 and correspondence to
    Shapiro from August 2009 to May 2010. Mot. for Sanctions Against
    Chase at 1; Mot. for Sanctions Against Shapiro at 1.
    -15-
    Sanctions Against Shapiro at 1-2, and that Chase and Shapiro
    falsely represented that Henok received notices, Mot. for
    Sanctions Against Chase at 3; Mot. for Sanctions Against Shapiro
    at 3.
    Henok has not complied with the safe harbor provision of
    Rule 11.    Henok’s motions include a certificate of service which
    states that the motions were served by first class mail on August
    2, 2012, which was the same day that the motions were filed on
    the public docket.
    Even if Henok had complied with the procedural rule,
    sanctions are not appropriate in this case.    With regard to both
    defendants, Henok seems to be referring to his letters requesting
    cure amounts attached to the second partial summary judgment
    motion.    See Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot., Exs. 4-7.   In
    particular, Henok alleges that Chase and Shapiro stated in
    filings that they did not receive Henok’s letters.     Mot. for
    Sanctions Against Chase at 3; Mot. for Sanctions Against Shapiro
    at 3.    As to Chase, Johnson signed a declaration that states that
    his review of Chase’s records revealed a December 1, 2008 change
    of address notification from Henok, but “no record in its file
    for this Loan of receiving a letter from Plaintiff dated
    August 13, 2009” and “Chase did not receive any cure payments
    from Plaintiff at any time between August 13, 2009 and
    November 18, 2009, or at any time thereafter.”    Chase’s Opp’n to
    Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot., Ex. A ¶¶ 2, 5, 7.    Similarly, for
    -16-
    Shapiro, Callahan signed a declaration that states that his
    review of Shapiro’s business records revealed that Shapiro
    received a November 4, 2009 phone message requesting a return
    call and that Shapiro “did not receive a change of address from
    the borrower in connection with the Property” and that “no other
    communications, such as requests for loan payoffs or
    reinstatement figures, were received by [Shapiro] from [Henok] in
    connection with the Property prior to the Sale.”      Shapiro’s Opp’n
    to Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot., Ex. A ¶ 4(c), (g), (j).        Henok’s
    certified mail receipts for his letters reflect that the first
    letter was signed for on August 17, 20099, and the third and
    fourth letters were signed for on November 6, 2009 and December
    28, 2009.      See Pl.’s Second Summ. J. Mot. Exs. 4, 6, 7.    However,
    Henok has not alleged or shown that Johnson’s and Callahan’s
    declarations falsely state the contents of Chase’s and Shapiro’s
    business records and what letters from Henok were contained in
    them.       Further, “[t]he Court must also take into consideration
    that Rule 11 sanctions are a harsh punishment, and what effect,
    if any, the alleged violations may have had on judicial
    proceedings.”      Sharp, 
    496 F. Supp. 2d at 100
     (internal quotation
    marks omitted).      The discrepancy between Chase and Shapiro’s
    business records and Henok’s certified mail receipts do not
    justify the “harsh punishment” of Rule 11 sanctions.
    9
    The second letter was not sent by certified mail and the
    receipt does not reflect any signature. See Pl.’s Second Summ.
    J. Mot., Ex. 5.
    -17-
    Henok also alleges that Chase and Shapiro provided two notes
    and falsely stated that the notes were true and correct copies.
    Mot. for Sanctions Against Chase at 3; Mot. for Sanctions Against
    Shapiro at 3.   Henok seems to be referring to Chase’s filing of a
    copy of the note appended to the opposition to Henok’s first
    summary judgment motion on April 2, 2012, Def. Chase’s Opp’n to
    Pl.’s First Summ. J. Mot., Ex. 1, and later filing of a copy of
    the note with the attached allonge on April 4, 2012, Chase’s
    Supp., Ex. 1.   Here, Henok has not provided any factual support
    for his claim that Chase falsely represented that the first note
    was a true and correct copy.   Henok’s unsupported allegation is
    insufficient to justify the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions.
    Because Henok has not met the requirements of Rule 11 and has not
    shown that the defendants engaged in sanctionable conduct, his
    motion for sanctions will be denied.
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER
    Henok has not shown that he is entitled to judgment as a
    matter of law on his claim that Chase was not the noteholder and
    could not validly foreclose on the property.   A genuine dispute
    exists about whether Henok was given the notice of foreclosure to
    which he was contractually entitled, but it is undisputed that
    Henok was given the required notice of default.   Thus Henok’s
    motions for partial summary judgment will be denied, but judgment
    will be entered for Chase on Henok’s contract claim regarding the
    notice of default.   Since striking Shapiro’s opposition is
    -18-
    neither warranted nor contemplated as a sanction under Rule
    12(f), the motion to strike will be denied.    Because Henok has
    not met the procedural requirements of Rule 11 or shown that the
    defendants have committed sanctionable conduct, the plaintiff’s
    motions for sanctions will be denied.    Accordingly, it is hereby
    ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions [11, 26] for partial
    summary judgment be, and hereby are, DENIED, and that judgment
    be, and hereby is, ENTERED for Chase concerning the notice of
    default claim.   It is further
    ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion [17] to strike Shapiro’s
    opposition to the first motion for partial summary judgment be,
    and hereby is, DENIED.   It is further
    ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions [32, 33] for sanctions
    against Chase and Shapiro and their counsel be, and hereby are,
    DENIED.
    SIGNED this 26th day of February, 2013.
    /s/
    RICHARD W. ROBERTS
    United States District Judge