Simpson v. Bank of America, NA, 4:16-cv-00208

Clinton Simpson and Debbie Simpson executed a promissory note (1999) secured by a deed of trust on property in Indianola, MS; the loan was later serviced by Countrywide/BAC and ultimately Bank of America, N.A. (BANA).
The Simpsons stopped timely payments in 2012 and submitted multiple Requests for Mortgage Assistance (RMAs) from 2013–2015; BANA repeatedly denied or rejected RMAs for missing documents or program ineligibility.
BANA scheduled a foreclosure sale for September 22, 2016; Simpson filed a state-court complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief alleging violations of HAMP and BANA internal policies and obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining the sale.
BANA removed the case to federal court; after discovery, BANA moved for summary judgment (also raising a factual standing challenge). Simpson did not oppose the motions.
The District Court concluded Simpson lacked standing to assert HAMP-based claims and that Simpson offered no evidence showing BANA violated its internal policies, and granted summary judgment for BANA; the motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied as moot.

Issue	Simpson's Argument	BANA's Argument	Held
Whether Simpson may sue based on alleged HAMP violations	HAMP violations and BANA servicing conduct harmed Simpson and entitle him to declaratory/injunctive relief	HAMP obligations run to the government/Fannie Mae, not borrowers; Simpson lacks standing	Court: Simpson lacks standing to pursue HAMP-based claims; those claims dismissed
Whether Simpson may sue for breach/violation of BANA internal policies	BANA represented it followed its internal policies; Simpson contends denials violated those policies	Any internal-policy violations do not create third-party rights absent representation/evidence; no evidence was produced	Court: No evidence of internal-policy violation; claims dismissed
Whether there is subject-matter jurisdiction given standing challenge	Simpson implicitly contends jurisdiction exists to decide his declaratory/damages claims	BANA contends factual attack on standing defeats jurisdiction; summary judgment treated as 12(b)(1) for factual attack	Court treated standing challenge as factual, Simpson failed to prove jurisdiction by preponderance; dismissal appropriate
Whether summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings should resolve the case	Simpson did not oppose motions	BANA sought summary judgment on merits and standing; alternatively judgment on pleadings	Court granted summary judgment for BANA; judgment on the pleadings denied as moot

Luv N’ Care Ltd. v. Grupo Rimar, 844 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2016) (summary-judgment standard and genuine-issue analysis)
Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 798 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2015) (definition of a genuine factual issue)
Edwards v. Continental Casualty Co., 841 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2016) (drawing inferences for nonmovant on summary judgment)
Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enterprises, Inc., 783 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2015) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
Celtic Marine Corp. v. James C. Justice Cos., Inc., 760 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2014) (movant satisfies burden by showing absence of evidence for nonmoving party)
United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (U.S. 1995) (standing as a core jurisdictional doctrine)
Bank One Texas v. United States, 157 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 1998) (summary judgment is not the preferred vehicle to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Superior MRI Services, Inc. v. Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc., 778 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2015) (distinction between facial and factual standing attacks)
Speleos v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 755 F. Supp. 2d 304 (D. Mass. 2010) (HAMP obligations run to program administrators, not borrowers)
La. Landmarks Soc., Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 85 F.3d 1119 (5th Cir. 1996) (standing distinct from private right of action)
Miller v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 677 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2012) (HAMP does not create a private right of action)