Throughout her career, Jessica has had the opportunity to hone her litigation skills on a broad range of matters, including the following:

• Routinely advising clients when responding to Qualified Written Requests (QWR), Requests for Information (RFI), and Notices of Error (NOE) under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), including preparation of draft responses and advice on documents to be provided in response to such requests.
• Representing client in a nationwide class action settlement involving RESPA claims premised on the alleged failure to properly respond to QWRs, RFIs, and NOEs.
• Representing client in settlement of Ohio class action involving alleged violations of Ohio’s Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA).
• Successfully representing financial institutions and mortgage servicers, both in individual and class actions in Ohio and nationwide, in a variety of cases arising under Ohio’s Uniform Commercial Code, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Retail Installment Sales Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the Truth In Lending Act.
• Successfully representing purchasers, suppliers, and manufacturers in product liability and breach of warranty actions in Ohio and nationwide.
• Routinely representing and counseling mental health organization regarding privacy and privilege issues, including responses to and oppositions of requests for information and subpoenas.
• Routinely representing landlords in both commercial and residential leasing disputes and eviction actions.

Representative Cases:

• Carey v. KeyBank, N.A., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132073 (N.D. Ohio July 26, 2024) (dismissing claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conspiracy, and violation of RESPA and TILA).
• Davis v. KeyBank, N.A. (In re Davis), 2024 Bankr. 1510 (Bankr. D. Nev. May 10, 2024) (dismissing claim alleging violation of 11 U.S.C. § 524 on behalf of a putative class of student loan borrowers because there is no private right of action for violation of bankruptcy discharge injunction).
• Baker v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16985 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2024) (dismissing claims against bank premised on alleged inability to enforce promissory note).
• Poynter v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs. LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45343 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2022) (obtained summary judgment in client’s favor in case alleging breach of contract and violations of RESPA, the FDCPA, and TILA in connection with the application of payments on a residential mortgage loan).
• Richissin v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223128 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2020) (dismissing RESPA claim because alleged notice of error did not relate to servicing or a covered error as set forth in applicable statutes and regulations).
• Iler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216261 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2020) (overruling objections to magistrate’s decision dismissing FDCPA claim against the bank finding that the allegations of the complaint failed to plausibly allege that the bank was a debt collector).
• Frank v. Autovest, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18082 (D.C. Cir. June 9, 2020) (finding debtor lacked standing to pursue FDCPA claim when she admitted that she did not take, or refrain from taking, any action as a result of the alleged misrepresentation).
• Iler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94052 (S.D. Ohio May 29, 2020) (granting motion to dismiss FDCPA and CSPA claims asserted against the bank).
• Frank v. Autovest, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169021 (D.D.C. Sep. 29, 2019) (granting summary judgment in favor of debt buyer and its servicer because alleged misrepresentation in violation of the FDCPA was not material).
• Munoz v. Rushmore Loan Management Servs. LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193191 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 21, 2017) (dismissing claims against loan servicer for defamation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the FDCPA and TILA).
• Carter v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21398 (6th Cir. 2017) (affirming decision in favor of bank).
• U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Matthews, 2017-Ohio-407, Ohio 8th Dist. Court of Appeals (affirming summary judgment in favor of bank).
• Matthews v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2017-Ohio-70, Ohio 8th Dist. Court of Appeals (dismissing borrower’s counterclaim as being barred by res judicata).
• Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. DePizzo, 2015-Ohio-40, 11th Dist. Court of Appeals (reversing a decision that the bank’s foreclosure claim was barred by the statute of limitations and remanding for the consideration of additional evidence).
• JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Chenoweth, 2014-Ohio-3507, Ohio 2nd Dist. Court of Appeals (affirming denial of borrower’s motion to vacate a foreclosure judgment).
• Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Carter, 2014-Ohio-5193, Ohio 12th Dist. Court of Appeals (affirming a decision in favor of residential mortgagee and holding that mortgagee demonstrated its standing to foreclose by proving its interest in the note and mortgage).
• Buckner v. Washington Mutual Bank, 2014-Ohio-5189, Ohio 12th Dist. Court of Appeals (affirming summary judgment for lender because borrower’s civil claims were barred by the res judicata effect of a prior foreclosure judgment).
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hammond, 2014-Ohio-5270, Ohio 8th Dist. Court of Appeals (affirming summary judgment in favor of lender and holding that lender demonstrated its standing to foreclose).
• Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Trissell, 2014-Ohio-1537, Ohio 2nd Dist. Court of Appeals (assignment of mortgage gives rise to presumption of assignment of note).
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Goebel, 2014-Ohio-472, Ohio 2nd Dist. Court of Appeals (compliance with face-to-face requirements for FHA mortgages).
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gerst, 2014-Ohio-80, Ohio 5th Dist. Court of Appeals (compliance with face-to-face requirements for FHA mortgages).
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2005-PR2 Trust v. Reaves, 2014-Ohio-3556, Ohio 12th Dist. Court of Appeals (allegations of complaint are deemed to be true when borrowers fail to respond to complaint obviating any challenge the borrowers attempt to make to summary judgment evidence on those allegations).
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Heimbaugh, 2014-Ohio-4637, Ohio 6th Dist. Court of Appeals (court does not abuse its discretion in granting default judgment against borrowers when documents demonstrating bank’s standing to foreclose were attached to the complaint and the bank’s compliance with conditions precedent was admitted by the borrowers’ failure to file an answer).
• Everbank v. Vanarnhem, 2013-Ohio-3872, Ohio 3rd Dist. Court of Appeals (standards for excusable neglect).
• U.S. Bank National Association v. Stanze, 2013-Ohio-2474, Ohio 2nd Dist. Court of Appeals (waiver of defense based on HUD’s face-to-face regulation).
• Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Cintron, 2012-Ohio-5914, Ohio 2nd Dist. Court of Appeals (right of rescission under Truth-In-Lending Act).