U.S. Bank National Association v. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company et al, No. 1:2019cv02307 - Document 52 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER. For the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order in U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for GSAMP Trust 2007-HE1 v. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, L.P., et al., No. 19-cv-2305 (AJN), dated November 23, 2020, Dkt. No. 72, Go ldman's letter motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 44) is DENIED. U.S. Bank's letter motion for oral argument (Dkt. No. 48) is DENIED as moot. The Court will set a status conference by separate order. SO ORDERED. Denying 44 LETTER MOTION addresse d to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Richard A. Jacobsen dated 7/13/2020 Re: Motion to Dismiss; Denying as moot 48 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument re: Defendants Letter Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 44) addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christopher P. Johnson dated July 27, 2020. Document filed by U.S. Bank National Association. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/23/2020) (rjm)

Download PDF
U.S. Bank National Association v. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company et al Doc. 52 Case 1:19-cv-02307-AJN Document 52 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 11/23/2020 U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for GSAMP Trust 2007-HE2, Plaintiff, 19-cv-2307 (AJN) ORDER –v– Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, et al., Defendants. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: U.S. Bank National Association claims that Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. (collectively, “Goldman”) breached their contractual obligations under a Pooling and Serving Agreement (“PSA”) to a trust for which U.S. Bank serves as trustee. The parties agree that the terms of the PSA are “identical” to those involved in a related case between the parties (the “2007-HE1 action”) in which Goldman has also moved to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 44, at 1. The Court entered a stipulation by which the parties agreed to incorporate by reference their briefs and supporting papers in the 2007-HE1 action and to limit their arguments here to letter briefing on any points of distinction. Dkt. No. 43. Only two factors distinguish this case from the 2007-HE1 action. First, U.S. Bank’s complaint here omits two claims it initially asserted and has now abandoned in the 2007-HE1 action alleging Goldman failed to notify it of warranty breaches. Compare Complaint, Dkt. No. 29, ¶¶ 70–93, with U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for GSAMP Trust 2007-HE1 v. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, L.P., et al., No. 19-cv-2305 (AJN), Dkt. No. 22, ¶¶ 84–123. Second, U.S. Bank includes further allegations here of facts supporting an inference that, if the Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-02307-AJN Document 52 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PSA required it to obtain depositor consent before filing suit, consent was either given or waived. See Complaint ¶ 63; see also Def. Br., Dkt. No. 44, at 2–3. Because the Court has held in the 2007-HE1 action that the relevant provisions of the PSA did not require U.S. Bank to obtain depositor consent before filing suit, it need not decide whether U.S. Bank has plausibly alleged that consent was given or waived here. For the reasons stated in the Court’s Opinion and Order in U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for GSAMP Trust 2007-HE1 v. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, L.P., et al., No. 19-cv-2305 (AJN), dated November 23, 2020, Dkt. No. 72, Goldman’s letter motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 44) is DENIED. U.S. Bank’s letter motion for oral argument (Dkt. No. 48) is DENIED as moot. The Court will set a status conference by separate order. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2020 New York, New York __________________________________ ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.