21.  Citizens is a mortgage “servicer” as that term is defined by 12 CFR § 1024.2(b)  and 12 U.S.C. § 2605(i)(2). Citizens is the current servicer of Plaintiff’s and Class (defined  below) members’ notes, and mortgages on real property that secure those notes (collectively  referred to hereinafter as the “loans”).   22.  Plaintiff’s and Class members’ loans are each a “federally related mortgage loan”  as said term is defined by RESPA and Regulation X.  12 U.S.C. § 2602(1); 12 CFR § 1024.2(b).   23.  As such, Citizens is subject to the requirements of RESPA and Regulation X, and  does not qualify for the exception for “small servicers”—as defined by 12 CFR §  1026.41(e)(4)—nor for the exemption for a “qualified lender”—as defined by 12 CFR § 617.700.   24.  Plaintiff and Class members submitted one or more QWRs—as defined by 12  U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B)—to Citizens.  Plaintiff’s and Class members’ QWRs were either RFIs— as defined by 12 CFR § 1024.36(a)—or NOEs—as defined by 12 CFR § 1024.35(a).  6   25.  In response to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ QWRs, Citizens replied with form  letters directing the borrower to contact Citizens’s foreclosure attorneys in order to obtain the  requested information and documents. Citizens did not otherwise make a substantive response to  the borrowers’ QWRs.   26.  12 CFR § 1024.36(f)(1) and 12 CFR § 1024.35(g)(1) set forth certain exceptions  to Citizens’s requirement to respond to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ RFIs and NOEs.  However, directing Plaintiff and Class members to contact Citizens’s foreclosure attorneys in  order to obtain the requested information and documents is not a permissible exception to  Citizens’s obligation to respond to QWRs, RFIs, and NOEs under RESPA and Regulation X.     27.  As such, Citizens failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiff’s and Class  members’ RFIs and NOEs.   28.  Specifically, relative to Plaintiff and members of the Class who submitted QWRs  in the form of RFIs, Citizens did not provide any of the requested information or documentation  pertaining to the specific information sought in those RFIs, as required by 12 CFR § 1024.36 and  12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(C)(i).   29.  Similarly, relative to Plaintiff and members of the Class who submitted QWRs in  the form of NOEs, Citizens did not correct any errors or conduct any investigation into the errors  asserted in those NOEs, as required by 12 CFR § 1024.35 and 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(A) and  37.  On or about March 13, 2018, Plaintiff, by and through counsel, sent two (2) RFIs  to Citizens via Certified Mail (See, RFIs sent from Plaintiff to Citizens, attached hereto as  Exhibits A and B, respectively).   38.  On April 18, 2018, Citizens responded (“Response”) to Plaintiff’s RFIs stating,  “We are responding to your letter which we received on March 19, 2018.  For more information  and documentation regarding the loan, please contact our foreclosure attorneys…. They will be  able to further assist you with questions in regards to the account.”  (See, Citizens’s Response to  Plaintiff’s RFIs, attached hereto as Exhibit C).   39.  Because Citizens “failed to do that which it was obligated to do [under RESPA]”  the time and expense associated with Plaintiff’s submission of his RFIs to Citizens  “metamorphosed into damages.” E.g., Marais, 24 F.Supp.3d at 728.  As such, Plaintiff was  harmed by Citizens’s failure to adequately respond to his RFIs, which constitutes a recoverable  damage.   40.  Since Plaintiff did not receive the information requested in his RFIs, Plaintiff, by  and through counsel, sent two separate NOEs to Citizens on May 8, 2018, one NOE for each of  the two RFIs to which Citizens failed to properly respond.  (See, NOEs sent from Plaintiff to  Citizens, attached hereto as Exhibits D and E, respectively).   41.  To date, neither Citizens, nor counsel for Citizens, has provided any other follow- up to Plaintiff’s RFIs or NOEs.  9   42.  Had Citizens adequately responded to Plaintiff’s RFIs, Plaintiff would not have  needed to send subsequent NOEs to Citizens.  Citizens’s failure to adequately respond to  Plaintiff’s RFIs caused him to incur additional costs—such as postage and attorneys’ fees— relative to sending his NOEs.  These additional costs related to Plaintiff’s NOEs are also a  recoverable damage.  43.  Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class of similarly  situated individuals and entities (the “Class”), defined as follows:  All loan borrowers (1) who submitted to Citizens a “qualified written  request,” as defined by 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B), in the form of a  Request for Information and/or Notice of Error, and (2) to whom Citizens  refused to provide information, and instead directed them to contact  Citizens’s foreclosure attorneys in order to obtain the requested  information and documents.  Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, Defendant’s agents,  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which  Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and those entities’  current and former employees, officers, and directors; (2) the Judge to  whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s immediate family; (3) any  person who executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the  Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally  adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives,  successors and assigns of any such excluded person.    44.  Plaintiff also brings this on behalf of a subclass of similarly situated individuals  (the “Subclass”) defined as follows:  All loan borrowers (1) who submitted to Citizens a “qualified written  request,” as defined by 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B), in the form of a  Request for Information and/or Notice of Error, (2) to whom Citizens  refused to provide information, and instead directed them to contact  Citizens’s foreclosure attorneys in order to obtain the requested  information and documents, and (3) who submitted to Citizens a second  10  “qualified written request,” as defined by 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B), in  the form of a Notice of Error related to Citizens’s response.   Excluded from the Subclass are: (1) Defendant, Defendant’s agents,  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which  Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and those entities’  current and former employees, officers, and directors; (2) the Judge to  whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s immediate family; (3) any  person who executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the  Subclass; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally  adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives,  successors and assigns of any such excluded person.    45.  Numerosity: Upon information and belief, the Class is comprised of more than  40 members.  This conclusion is reasonable because Citizens is a substantial mortgage provider  in the country.    46.  The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.  The exact  number of members in the Class is presently unknown, can only be ascertained through  discovery, and can easily be identified through Defendant’s records or by other means.     47.  Commonality and Predominance: All members of the Class have been subject  to and affected by a uniform course of conduct: specifically, Citizens refusing to provide  information in response to QWRs and instead directing them to contact Citizens’s foreclosure  attorneys in order to obtain the requested information and documents.  There are questions of law  and fact common to the proposed classes that predominate over any individual questions,  including but not limited to:  a. Whether Citizens is a mortgage “servicer” as defined by 12 CFR 1024.2(b) and/or  12 U.S.C. 2605(i)(2);  b. Whether the Plaintiff and Class members sent QWRs to Citizens, as defined by 12  U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B);  11  c. Whether Citizens’s directing Plaintiff and Class members to contact Citizens’s  foreclosure attorneys in order to obtain the requested information and documents,  as set forth in Citizens’s uniform response to Plaintiff’s and Class members’  QWRs, is provided for under 12 CFR 1024.35(g)(1) or 12 CFR 1024.36(f)(1);  d. Whether Citizens’s uniform response to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ RFI’s was  compliant with 12 CFR 1024.36(d);  e. Whether Citizens’s uniform response to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ NOE’s  was compliant with 12 CFR 1024.35(e)(1).   48.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class.  Plaintiff and  Class members were denied information to which they were entitled because Defendant  unlawfully refused to produce information and documents, and Plaintiff and Class members  incurred damages as a result.   49.  Adequacy: Plaintiff will adequately represent the interests of the Class and does  not have adverse interests to the Class. If individual Class members prosecuted separate actions  it may create a risk of inconsistent or varying judgments that would establish incompatible  standards of conduct. A class action is the superior method for the quick and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. Plaintiff’s counsel has extensive experience litigating consumer  class actions.  50.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 49.     51.  Plaintiff and Class members submitted QWRs to Citizens, as that term is defined  by 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B).  (See, Exhibits A and B).  12   52.  Plaintiff’s and Class members’ QWRs requested specific information related to  their loans, pursuant to 12 CFR § 1024.35 and 12 CFR § 1024.36.   53.  Citizens failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiff’s and Class members’  QWRs. Specifically, Citizens has not provided any of the requested materials concerning specific  information related to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ loans or correct any of the asserted errors,  as required by 12 CFR § 1024.35(e)(1), 12 CFR § 1024.36(d), and 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2), but  instead replied with form letters directing Plaintiff and Class members to contact Citizens’s  foreclosure attorneys in order to obtain the requested information and documents.  (See, Exhibit  C).   54.  12 CFR § 1024.35(g) and 12 CFR § 1024.36(f) did not, and do not, permit  Citizens to direct Plaintiff and Class members to contact Citizens’s foreclosure attorneys in order  to obtain the information and documents requested in Plaintiff’s and Class members’ QWRs;  rather, Citizens has the obligation to provide the requested information and documents itself.   55.  Citizens’s actions, in failing to fully respond to Plaintiff’s and Class members’  QWRs or correct any asserted errors in compliance with 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2), 12 CFR §  1024.35(e)(1), and 12 CFR § 1024.36(d) or, alternatively, to state the reason under 12 U.S.C. §§  2605(e)(2)(B)(i) or (C)(i), 12 CFR §1024.35(g), and 12 CFR §1024.36(f), pursuant to which  Citizens determined that the borrower’s account was correct or that Citizens did not need to  comply with 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2), 12 CFR § 1024.35(e)(1), or 12 CFR § 1024.36(d),  constitute clear violations of the requirements of 12 U.S.C. §§ 2605(e)(2)(B)(i) and (C)(i), as  interpreted by 12 CFR § 1024.35 and 12 CFR § 1024.36.   56.  As a result of Citizens’s refusal to provide the requested information and  documents, in violation of its obligations under RESPA and Regulation X, Plaintiff and Subclass  13  members were required to send additional “qualified written requests,” as that term is defined by  12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B), in the form of subsequent NOEs.  (See, Exhibits D and E).   57.  Had Citizens adequately responded to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ initial  QWRs, Plaintiff and Class members would not have needed to send subsequent NOEs regarding  Citizens’s erroneous refusal to provide the requested information and documents, in violation of  its obligations under RESPA and Regulation X.   58.  Plaintiff and Class members were harmed by Citizens’s failure to adequately  respond to their initial QWRs because, as set forth above, the time and expense associated with  Plaintiff’s and Class members’ submission of those QWRs to Citizens “metamorphosed into  damages.”  Additionally, Plaintiff and Subclass members were harmed by Citizens’s failure to  adequately respond to their initial QWRs because it required them to incur the time and expense  associated with sending subsequent NOEs.     59.  Citizens is hiding behind a baseless referral to its foreclosure attorneys in order to  ignore its legal obligations to respond to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ QWRs.   60.  Citizens’s actions are believed to be the continuation of a pattern and practice of  behavior in conscious disregard of the Plaintiff’s and Class members’ rights.   61.  As a result of Citizens’s actions, Citizens is liable to Plaintiff and Class members  for actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorney fees.  12 U.S.C. §§ 2605(f)(2) and (3).  VIOLATIONS OF 12 U.S.C. § 2605 AND 12 CFR § 1024.36   (On behalf Plaintiff and the Class)  