19.  SPS is a mortgage “servicer” as that term is defined by 12 C.F.R. § 1024.2(b) and  12 U.S.C. § 2605(i)(2). SPS is the current servicer of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ notes, and  6  mortgages on real property that secure those notes (collectively referred to hereinafter as the  “loans”).   20.  Plaintiffs’ 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 C.F.R. §  1024.2(b).   21.  SPS is subject to the requirements of RESPA and Regulation X, and does not  qualify for the exception for “small servicers”—as defined by 12 C.F.R. § 1026.41(e)(4)—nor  for the exemption for a “qualified lender”—as defined by 12 C.F.R. § 617.700.   22.  Plaintiffs and Class members submitted RFIs and/or NOEs (collectively, the  “RESPA Request Letters”) to SPS, each of which were “qualified written requests,” as that term  is defined by 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B).   23.  In response to Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ RESPA Request Letters, SPS replied  with form letters claiming an “active litigation” exception to its obligations, and otherwise  refused to provide a substantive response to such correspondence.   24.  Plaintiffs and certain Class members—i.e., members of “Subclass 1,” defined  below—sent NOEs to SPS concerning SPS’s insufficient responses to Plaintiffs’ and Class  members’ RESPA Request Letters (the “Follow-up NOEs”).   25.  SPS failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiffs’ and Class members’  RESPA Request Letters. Specifically, SPS has not provided any of the requested information or  performed a reasonable investigation into or correction of any alleged errors concerning  Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ loans, as required by 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36,  and 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(B)-(C).  7   26.  Plaintiffs and Class members were harmed because they incurred the expenses  associated with sending the RESPA Request Letters—such as their time, postage, etc.—but they  did not receive the information or the reasonable investigation into or correction of asserted  errors to which they were legally entitled, pursuant to RESPA and Regulation X.   27.  Subsequently, Plaintiffs and certain Class members—i.e., members of “Subclass  1,” defined below—sent NOEs to SPS concerning SPS’s insufficient responses to Plaintiffs’ and  Class members’ RESPA Request Letters (the “Follow-up NOEs”).   28.  In response to Plaintiffs’ and Subclass 1 members’ Follow-up NOEs, SPS again  replied with form letters claiming an “active litigation” exception to its obligations, and  otherwise refused to provide a substantive response to such correspondence.   29.  Based upon its responses to Plaintiffs’ and Subclass 1 members’ Follow-up NOEs,  SPS did not conduct any investigation into the specific errors made by the Plaintiffs and class  members, nor did SPS attempt to correct those errors.  Instead, SPS continued to rely on an  “active litigation” exception, claiming that SPS would provide no response because the issues  raised were the same or very closely related to the issues raised in pending litigation.   30.  Had SPS adequately responded to Plaintiffs’ and Subclass 1 members’ RESPA  Request Letters, Plaintiffs and Subclass 1 members would not have needed to send the Follow- up NOEs regarding SPS’s erroneous assertion of an “active litigation” exception to its  obligations under RESPA and Regulation X.  As such, Plaintiffs and Subclass 1 members were  further harmed by SPS’s failure to adequately respond to their RESPA Request Letters because it  required them to incur the expenses associated with sending the Follow-up NOEs—such as their  time, postage, etc.    8   31.  As most homeowners sending RESPA Request Letters are involved in defending  against foreclosure, accepting this kind of conduct would allow creditors to hide behind the  foreclosure process to unlawfully extinguish their obligations under RESPA and Regulation X.   32.  Plaintiffs and Class members are asserting claims for relief against SPS for breach  of the duties owed to them, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e), 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35, and 12 C.F.R.  § 1024.36.   33.  Plaintiffs and Class members have a private right of action, pursuant to 12 U.S.C.  § 2605(f), for the claimed breaches, and RESPA provides for remedies including actual damages,  costs, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees.  34.  On December 13, 2017, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, sent an NOE to SPS  via Certified Mail (See, NOE sent from Plaintiffs to SPS, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (“NOE  #1”)).     35.  On December 29, 2017, SPS responded to NOE #1 (“Response to NOE #1”)  stating that “the issues presented in your letter are part of an ongoing litigation…Due to the  current litigation, SPS believes that it would be more appropriate to refrain from providing a  detailed response to you at this time” and that Plaintiffs could reach out to SPS’s counsel in the  related foreclosure action involving Plaintiffs’ home.  (See, SPS’s Response to NOE #1, attached  hereto as Exhibit 2).   36.  Plaintiffs were harmed by SPS’s failure to adequately respond to NOE #1 because  it required them to incur costs relative to sending NOE #1—such as postage and attorneys’  fees—but they did not receive the correction of the alleged errors on the loan to which they were  legally entitled, pursuant to RESPA and Regulation X.  9   37.  Since SPS did not correct the errors alleged through NOE #1 and did not  otherwise respond in compliance with 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(e), Plaintiffs, by and through counsel,  sent an NOE to SPS on January 9, 2018.  (See, NOE sent from Plaintiffs to SPS, attached hereto  as Exhibit 3 (“NOE #2”)).   38.  On January 29, 2018, SPS responded to NOE #2 (“SPS’s Response to NOE #2”)  finally providing a substantive response to the issues presented through NOE #1 and reiterated  through NOE #2.   39.  To date, neither SPS, nor counsel for SPS, has provided any other follow-up to  Plaintiffs’ RESPA Request Letters.   40.  Had SPS adequately responded to NOE #1, Plaintiffs would not have needed to  send NOE #2 to SPS.  As such, Plaintiffs were harmed by SPS’s failure to adequately respond to  NOE #1 because it required them to incur additional costs—such as postage and attorneys’  fees—relative to sending NOE #2.  41.  Class Definition: Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23 on  behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals and entities (the “Class”), defined as follows:  All loan borrowers in the United States (1) who submitted to SPS a  “qualified written request,” as defined by 12 U.S.C. §  2605(e)(1)(B), in the form of a Request for Information or Notice  of Error, (2) to whom SPS refused to provide information or  perform a reasonable investigation into the asserted errors because  of a cited “active litigation” exception.   42.  Subclass 1 Definition:  Plaintiffs also bring this action pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P.  23 on behalf of a subclass of similarly situated individuals and entities, defined as follows:  All loan borrowers in the United States (1) who submitted to SPS a  “qualified written request,” as defined by 12 U.S.C. §  2605(e)(1)(B), in the form of a Request for Information or Notice  of Error, (2) to whom SPS refused to provide information or  10  perform a reasonable investigation into the asserted errors because  of a cited “active litigation” exception, and (3) who submitted to  SPS a second “qualified written request,” as defined by 12 U.S.C.  § 2605(e)(1)(B), in the form of a Notice of Error related to SPS’s  assertion of an “active litigation” exception.   43.  Excluded from the Class and Subclass 1 are (1) Defendant; (2) Defendant’s  agents; (3) any person(s) 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.  Numerosity: Upon information and belief, the Class is comprised of more than  40 members.  This conclusion is reasonable because SPS is one of the largest mortgage providers  in the country, which, as of 2017, serviced more than 550,000 loans worth greater than $90  billion,3 and SPS sent form letters asserting an “active litigation” exception to Plaintiffs and  Class members.  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.     45.  Commonality and Predominance: All members of the Class have been subject  to and affected by a uniform course of conduct: specifically, SPS refusing to provide information  in response to RESPA Request Letters by claiming an “active litigation” exception. There are  questions of law and fact common to the proposed classes that predominate over any individual  questions.   46.  Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class.  Plaintiffs and  Class members were denied information to which they were entitled because Defendant  3 Servicer Evaluation: Select Portfolio Serving, Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings, October 10,  2017, https://www.standardandpoors.com/en_US/web/guest/article/-/view/sourceId/10266651  (last visited April 16, 2019)  11  unlawfully refused to produce information due to an erroneous “active litigation” exception, and  Plaintiffs and Class members incurred damages as a result.   47.  Adequacy: Plaintiffs will adequately represent the interests of the Class and do  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. Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience litigating consumer  class actions.  48.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-47, with the same force and effect as  though full set forth herein.     49.  Plaintiffs and Class members submitted RESPA Request Letters to SPS, which  were “qualified written requests,” as that term is defined by 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B).  (See,  Exhibits 1 and 3).   50.  Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ RESPA Request Letters asserted that there were  errors on their loans in need of correction or requested specific information related to their loans  pursuant to 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35 and 1024.36.   51.  SPS failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiffs’ and Class members’  RESPA Request Letters. Specifically, SPS did not provide the requested materials concerning  specific information or the error resolutions related to the Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ loans as  required by 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35 and 1024.36 and 12 U.S.C. §§ 2605(e)(2)(B) and  2605(e)(2)(C)(i), but instead replied with form letters claiming an “active litigation” exception to  its obligations.  (See, Exhibit 2).  12   52.  12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(g) did, and does, not permit SPS to assert an “active  litigation” exception to responding to the requests contained in Plaintiffs’ and Class members’  RESPA Request Letters.   53.  12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(f) did, and does, not permit SPS to assert an “active  litigation” exception to responding to the requests contained in Plaintiffs’ and Class members’  RESPA Request Letters.   54.  SPS’s actions, in failing to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ RESPA  Request Letters in compliance with 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35 and 1024.36 and 12 U.S.C. §§  2605(e)(2)(B) and 2605(e)(2)(C)(i) or, alternatively, to state the reason under 12 U.S.C. §  2605(e)(2)(C)(i) and 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(f)(1) or 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(g)(1), pursuant to which  SPS determined it did not need to comply with 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35(e) and 1024.36(d) and 12  U.S.C. §§ 2605(e)(2)(B) and 2605(e)(2)(C)(i), constitute clear violations of the requirements of  12 U.S.C. §§ 2605(e)(2)(B) and 2605(e)(2)(C)(i), as interpreted by 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35 and  1024.36, respectively.   55.  Plaintiffs and Class members were harmed because they incurred the expenses  associated with sending RESPA Request Letters—such as their time, postage, etc.—but they did  not receive error resolution sought or the information to which they were legally entitled,  pursuant to RESPA and Regulation X.   56.  SPS is hiding behind a baseless “active litigation” exception in order to ignore its  legal obligations to respond to Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ RESPA Request Letters in a timely  manner.   57.  SPS’s actions are believed to be the continuation of a pattern and practice of  behavior in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ rights.  13   58.  As a result of SPS’s actions, SPS is liable to Plaintiffs and Class members for  actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.  12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(2)-(3).  59.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-47, with the same force and effect as  though full set forth herein.     60.  Plaintiffs and Subclass 1 members submitted RESPA Request Letters to SPS,  which were “qualified written requests,” as that term is defined by 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B).   (See, Exhibit 1).   61.  Plaintiffs’ and Subclass 1 members’ RESPA Request Letters requested the  resolution of asserted errors or specific information related to their loans, pursuant to 12 C.F.R.  §§ 1024.35 or 1024.36.   62.  SPS failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiffs’ and Subclass 1 members’  RESPA Request Letters. Specifically, SPS did not provide the requested materials concerning  specific information or the error resolutions related to the Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ loans as  required by 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35 and 1024.36 and 12 U.S.C. §§ 2605(e)(2)(B) and  2605(e)(2)(C)(i), but instead replied with form letters claiming an “active litigation” exception to  its obligations. (See, Exhibit 2).   63.  12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(g) did, and does, not permit SPS to assert an “active  litigation” exception to responding to the requests contained in Plaintiffs’ and Class members’  RESPA Request Letters.   64.  12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(f) did, and does, not permit SPS to assert an “active  litigation” exception to responding to the requests contained in Plaintiffs’ and Subclass 1  members’ RESPA Request Letters.  14   65.  SPS’s actions, in failing to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ RESPA  Request Letters in compliance with 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35 and 1024.36 and 12 U.S.C. §§  2605(e)(2)(B) and 2605(e)(2)(C)(i) or, alternatively, to state the reason under 12 U.S.C. §  2605(e)(2)(C)(i) and 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(f)(1) or 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(g)(1), pursuant to which  SPS determined it did not need to comply with 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35(e) and 1024.36(d) and 12  U.S.C. §§ 2605(e)(2)(B) and 2605(e)(2)(C)(i), constitute clear violations of the requirements of  12 U.S.C. §§ 2605(e)(2)(B) and 2605(e)(2)(C)(i), as interpreted by 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35 and  1024.36, respectively.   66.  As a result of SPS’s assertion of an erroneous “active litigation” exception to its  obligations under RESPA and Regulation X, Plaintiffs and Subclass 1 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 NOEs.  (See, Exhibit 3).   67.  Had SPS adequately responded to Plaintiffs’ and Subclass 1 members’ RESPA  Request Letters, Plaintiffs and Subclass 1 members would not have needed to send NOEs  regarding SPS’s erroneous assertion of an “active litigation” exception to its obligations under  RESPA and Regulation X.   68.  Plaintiffs and Subclass 1 members were harmed because they incurred the  expenses associated with sending RESPA Request Letters—such as their time, postage, etc.—but  they did not receive the error resolution or the information to which they were legally entitled,  pursuant to RESPA and Regulation X.   69.  Plaintiffs and Subclass 1 members were also harmed by SPS’s failure to  adequately respond to their RESPA Request Letters because it required them to incur the time  and expenses associated with sending NOEs.    15   70.  SPS is hiding behind a baseless “active litigation” exception in order to ignore its  legal obligations to respond to Plaintiffs’ and Subclass 1 members RESPA Request Letters.   71.  SPS’s actions are believed to be the continuation of a pattern and practice of  behavior in conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ and Subclass 1 members’ rights.   72.  As a result of SPS’s actions, SPS is liable to Plaintiffs and Subclass 1 members  for actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.  12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(2)-(3).  VIOLATIONS OF 12 U.S.C. § 2605 AND 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35 and 1024.36   (on behalf Plaintiffs and Subclass 1)   VIOLATIONS OF 12 U.S.C. § 2605 AND 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35 AND 1024.36   (on behalf Plaintiffs and the Class)  