DOCKET NO. CV - 10- 6007676 S THOMAS J.

LACASSE

: :

SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD / NORWALK AT STAMFORD JUNE 24, 2011

VS: : AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, ET AL :

PLAINTIFF THOMAS J. LACASSES BRIEF

The Plaintiff, Thomas J. La Casse, hereby files his Plaintiffs Brief, pursuant to instruction of the Court, substantiating the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Stamford Connecticut to hear this mater. In support of the above motion, the Plaintiff represents and states:

Jurisdiction Of The Superior Court At Stamford Connecticut

1. On or about November 15, 2006, the Plaintiff, Thomas J. La Casse, consummated a loan to purchase a residential home in Longmeadow, Massachusetts, with an address of 270 Park Drive, with Homecomings Financial, LLC F/K/A Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. 2. On or about October 21, 2010, Plaintiff, Thomas J. La Casse, discovered that Defendant Aurora Loan Services LLC had purportedly initiated a foreclosure action in Massachusetts, with a sale date set for November 22, 2010. 3. By the time of the filing of the instant action, Thomas J. La Casse v. Aurora Loan Services, et al, Plaintiff Thomas J. La Casse was a Connecticut Resident living at the address of 153 Valley Forge Road, Weston, CT 06883. 4. The Defendant in the new instant matter has improperly attempted to make the case that Thomas J. La Casse was not a Connecticut Resident. The alleged claim of Plaintiff is founded upon the absurd theory that Americans are not permitted to move frequently. In reality, in the United States of America, our citizens move sometimes quite frequently, and more than once in a year for a variety of reasons, including job opportunities, economic reasons, deaths or births in a

(2) family, marriages, cost of housing, and so on. It is highly prejudicial and unfounded for the defendants to say that Thomas J. La Casse was not allowed to move from Massachusetts to Connecticut shortly before the filing of this action, when our American People are on the go very often. 5. At the time of the filing of the Massachusetts action, Thomas La Casse was also a Connecticut Resident, and was physically living in his Connecticut home. La Casse owned multiple properties for investment purposes, and other family reasons. The Defendants in this new action have no authority to make determination for the Court which property La Casse sleeps in at night , and where he eats his breakfast. La Casse had listed a Massachusetts property as an address on the advice of his lawyer because earlier continued paperwork had shown that address, and because of multiple properties being entwined in ongoing court battles. La Casse did not live at the subject Massachusetts address at the time of filing of either action. 6. Thomas J. La Casse was not served either with the Complaint at his Connecticut residence, and with further negligence or fraud, the Plaintiff, Aurora Loan Services, in the Massachusetts action claimed that in the Complaint that La Casse was a resident of Springfield, MA, although he had not lived there in more than thirty-years. 7. Importantly, both defendants in the new instant Connecticut action, Aurora Loan Services and MERS, both are licensed by the State of Connecticut, and in fact conduct business on a daily basis in the State of Connecticut. Even if it could be proven that La Casse was not a Connecticut resident, which Plaintiff denies, any out of state resident would still have the choice and ability to sue and bring an action against an entity (person) doing business in the State of Connecticut. 8. The Plaintiff, Thomas J. La Casse currently lives, and is a resident of the State of Connecticut. This Honorable Court has no Jurisdiction to order the Plaintiff La Casse to go back to Massachusetts to re-file this instant action when he does not reside there. This would be a

(3) horrible injustice for La Casse to have to commute back and forth to Massachusetts to have his day in court in the pursuit of justice. 9. That the Defendants, Aurora Loan Services and MERS, in the instant action misrepresented themselves and the fact that the Massachusetts action had already been decided and ruled upon. Judge Douglas J. Mintz, in hearing on Defendants Motion To Dismiss had discovered that the Defendants had made such fallacious claims, when in fact Massachusetts is a non-judicial state. 10. Plaintiff, Thomas J. La Casse argues and maintains that if he is not allowed to bring this action now in the State where he resides in Connecticut, and in a state where both Defenedants conduct every day ongoing business, licensed by the State of Connecticut, then he is in realty then being denied his right to seek justice and defend himself. The Court in Hearing on Defendants Motion To Dismiss also pointed out, that then Defendant Thomas J. La Casse was not able to defend himself and his family in the Massachusetts action, due to the fact that it is a non-judicial state. The only way of defending against such a foreclosure action is to bring a new additional lawsuit, which Plaintiff, Thomas J. La Casse is doing at present. 11. That the Defendants have further improperly and inaccurately represented in their motion and in Hearing that La Casse is attempting and asking, in each and every paragraph and count of the new Complaint, to seek to have the Superior Court of Stamford, re-decide and twice adjudicate the decisions of the Massachusetts Court and State of Massachusetts. First, as this Court has already pointed out in the last Hearing, Massachusetts is a non-judicial state and thus, nothing could be, or would be heard there pertaining to the La Casse foreclosure matter. Second, La Casse has plead, and has re-stated and affirmed in the prior Hearing that he is not asking this Court to re-decide the foreclosure action that took place on the La Casse Massachusetts property; Plaintiff is only seeking money damages in this new Connecticut action for violations as stated in the Complaint of Connecticut Law, and without limitation other Federal, and local laws.

(4) 12. The Defendant, MERS, was conducting banking lending practices in the State of Connecticut under false and fraudulent pretenses, while at all times lacking a proper Connecticut Banking/Lending license to perform the fiduciary actions of selling and assigning notes and mortgages as it did in the La Casse matter. Such unconscionable action and conduct is a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which is under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Stamford. Further, La Casse has also plead and stated in other pleadings the additional acts and practices of both defendants which additionally violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, all such pleadings filed in this action by Plaintiff are incorporated and included herein this Brief as evidence of jurisdiction of this Court. WHEREFORE, based upon all of the foregoing facts and presentment, and the incorporated facts as stated in Plaintiffs Objection to Defendants Motion To Dismiss, the subject Defendants motion should be denied by the Court.

The Plaintiff (Thomas J. La Casse) By: _______-_042191_-_____________________ Attorney Paul S. Nakian Plaintiffs attorney
Tel: 203 357-7777 Fax: 203 356-9490

Date: June 24, 2011______

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The Plaintiff hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Brief has been furnished via U.S. First Class Mail on June 1, 2011 to the office of the Defendants counsel Knuckles, Komosinski & Elliott, LLP 565 Taxter Road, Suite 590, Elmsford, NY 1052 Attn: Attorney Jordan J. Manfro ______________- 042191 -____________________ Paul S. Nakian, Plaintiffs attorney