Ademiluyi v. Pennymac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC
929 F. Supp. 2d 502
D. Maryland2013Background
- Plaintiff Ademiluyi filed a class action alleging unlicensed debt collection in Maryland and FDCPA, MMFPA, and unjust enrichment claims against PennyMac Holdings and PennyMac Trust.
- Plaintiffs mortgage debt was originated in Maryland; PennyMac Holdings purchased/defaulted debts and engaged in foreclosure and servicing actions through PennyMac Services.
- Defendants allegedly operated without a Maryland MCALA license and also represented themselves as debt collectors while collecting on mortgage debts.
- The court granted motion to dismiss in part and denied in part: Count I moot; PennyMac Trust veiled-liability and some FDCPA/MMFPA issues dismissed or left for amendment; PennyMac Holdings potentially liable as a debt purchaser; unjust enrichment dismissed.
- The court applied Maryland choice-of-law principles, took judicial notice of licensing records, and treated federal FDCPA claims; discovery and certain damages issues were unresolved at this stage.
- Plaintiff may pursue certain damages (emotional distress, attorney’s fees tied to FDCPA defense) while restitution for mortgage payments was denied under MMFPA and MCALA constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veil piercing of PennyMac Trust | Ademiluyi asserts PennyMac Trust controls PennyMac Holdings and should be pierced. | Defendants argue lack of factual basis for piercing the corporate veil. | PennyMac Trust dismissed on veil-piercing grounds; leave to amend. |
| MCALA violation by PennyMac Holdings | PennyMac Holdings engaged in debt collection without a Maryland license. | Debtor claims the MCALA does not apply to this structure; licensing issue disputed. | MCALA applies to debt purchasers; PennyMac Holdings liable as collection agency. |
| FDCPA claim viability for MCALA violation | Unlicensed collection activities violate the FDCPA when they also breach MCALA. | Unlicensed conduct alone is not per se FDCPA violation; must violate FDCPA provisions. | FDCPA claims viable against PennyMac Holdings for both direct and indirect collection activity under 1692e(5) and 1692f. |
| Mortgage fraud under MMFPA | Defendants’ licensing failure constitutes mortgage fraud under MMFPA with damages. | MMFPA pleading standards and damages bar recovery of mortgage payments; limited damages. | MMFPA claim viable; restitution for mortgage payments denied; other MMFPA damages allowed to extent. |
| Unjust enrichment claim | Lack of license caused unjust enrichment by collecting on debt. | Express contract governs; unjust enrichment not viable. | Unjust enrichment claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Dackman, 413 Md. 132 (Md. 2010) (LLC member liability; veil context for Maryland law)
- Antigua Condominium Ass’n v. Melba Invs. Atl, Inc., 307 Md. 700 (Md. 1986) (veil piercing narrowly construed; grounds require fraud or paramount equity)
- Bradshaw v. Hilco Receivables, LLC, 765 F. Supp. 2d 719 (D. Md. 2011) (MCALA as basis for FDCPA claims; debt purchaser scope)
- Glazer v. Chase Home Finance LLC, 704 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2013) (mortgage foreclosure treated as debt collection under FDCPA)
- Hauk v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 749 F. Supp. 2d 358 (D. Md. 2010) (MCALA licensing relevance to FDCPA claims; indirect collection liability)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (2010) (FDCPA scope; debt collectors and enforcement actions)