Jay Lin, et ux. v. Hudson City Savings Bank, et al.

The case started as a falsely debt collection case in New Jersey State Courts with the New Jersey Court Judges accepted personal, private, and secretive Stipulation from Defendant to overlook Defendant’s violation of FDCPA. In the Federal FDCPA violation case that Plaintiff brought against Defendants, the New Jersey District Court judge circumvented his recusal by suspending FRCP R. 7.1 corporate disclosure statement requirement and afterward declared an exception to R. 7.1 requirement to the FDCPA case. The judge of Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit circumvented the recusal by issuing Defendant a waiver to exempt the FRAP R. 26.1 corporate disclosure statement require­ ment. The questions presented are:

1. Must a reviewing court strictly adhere to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 26.1 require­ ment that a nongovernmental corporate party to a pro­ ceeding in a court of appeals must file a statement identifying all its parent corporations and listing any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s stock as other Circuits have held.

2. The Court should revisit Henson et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. 582 U.S. (2017), 137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017) to resolve a clear violation on FRAP and FDCPA clear standard.

3. The Petition is an ideal vehicle to review the New Jersey Courts in lack of judicial ethics codes per­ mitted the judges to accepted personal, private, secretive Stipulation from the counsels and circumvented FRAP