Order | Filed: August 24, 2026
Pacific Life Insurance Company et al v. US Bank National Association et al
Other Statutory Actions | New York Southern
Order
OPINION AND ORDER re: 289 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . filed by Pacific Life & Annuity Company, Pacific Life Insurance Company, 299 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . filed by US Bank National Associatio n. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' and Defendant's cross motions for partial summary judgment are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, and for purposes of clarity: Summary judgment is granted in Defendant's favor on Plaintiffs' claims concerning ARMT 2005-10, BAFC 2007-D, CMALT 2007-A4, CMALT 2007- A6, CMLTI 2005-7, CMLTI 2007-AR5, JPMMT 2005-A7, WAMU 2006-AR2, WAMU 2007-HY3, WAMU 2007-HY7, WFMBS 2006-AR1, and WMALT 2007-4 because Plaintiffs sold the ass ociated certificates and cannot maintain these claims. Summary judgment is granted in Defendant's favor on Plaintiffs' claimsconcerning BSARM 2005-7 and CMLTI 2006-AR1-except TIA claims forthose trustsbecause Plaintiffs sold the associated certificates and cannotmaintain these claims. Summary judgment is granted in Defendant's favor on Plaintiffs' claims associated with the certificates issued by JPALT 2006-S4 with the CUSIP No. 466302AK2 and issued by WAMU 2007-HY1 with the CUSIP Nos. 92925VAE0 and 92925VAK6 because Plaintiffs sold the associated certificates and cannot maintain these claims. Summary judgment is granted in Defendant's favor on Plaintiffs' claims that rely upon the portions of the certificate s that Plaintiffs sold regarding the certificates issued by JPALT 2006-S4 with the CUSIP No. 466302AJ5 and issued by CSFB 2004-8 with the CUSIP No. 22541SW95 because Plaintiffs sold portions of the associated certificates and cannot maintain these cl aims. Summary judgment is granted in Defendant's favor on Plaintiffs' pre-EOD repurchase enforcement claims concerning BSARM 2005-7 because those claims are time-barred. Summary judgment is granted in Defendant's favor on all of Plain tiffs'repurchase enforcement claims concerning CSFB 2004-8 and JPMMT 2005-A7 because those claims are time-barred. Summary judgment is granted in Defendant's favor on Plaintiffs' pre-EODloan-characteristic R&W repurchase enforcement c laims relating to TBW2006-6 because Plaintiffs lack evidence that the relevant deal parties had knowledge or notice of specific mortgage loans with loan-characteristic R&Wbreaches. Summary judgment is granted in Defendant's favor on Plaintiffs 039; pre-EOD loan-characteristic R&W repurchase enforcement claims relating to JPALT 2006-S4 and JPMMT 2007-A4except as to JPALT 2006-S4's mortgage loans 1742458918 and 1845715746because Plaintiffs lack evidence of the requisite written notice. Summary judgment is granted in Defendants favor on Plaintiffs' pre-EOD loan-characteristic R&W claimsexcept as to the 64 loans referenced in ECF No. 323-4because Plaintiffs failed to present loan-specific evidence that Defendant discovered, had actual knowledge of, or received notice of those breaches. Summary judgment is granted in Defendants favor as to the post-EOD claims for which lack of notice was asserted, except (i) post-EOD claims concerning GSR 2006-AR1; (ii) post-EOD claims reg arding CFLX 2006-1, WAMU 2006-AR8, WAMU 2006-AR16, WAMU 2006-AR18, WAMU 2007- HY1, WAMU 2007-HY2, and WAMU 2007-HY4 that rely on ECF Nos. 306-345, 306-375, 306-376, and 306-377 to provide the requisite written notice; and (iii) post-EOD claims relati ng to JPALT 2006-S4 (unsold portion of CUSIP No. 466302AJ5), JPMMT 2005-A7, and MSM 2006-7 that are based upon Defendants alleged actual knowledge of the master servicer's failure to ensure proper servicing of certain mortgage loans or the lette rs at ECF Nos.301-161 and 301-163. Summary judgment is granted in Defendants favor on Plaintiffs' tort claims because they impermissibly duplicate Plaintiffs breach-of-contract claims. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiffs concern ing Defendant's affirmative defense numbers 21 (advice of counsel), 34 (unclean hands), 40 (no-action clause), 41 (champerty), 44 (monoline insurance), 46 (unjust enrichment), 54 (third-party guarantee), 55 (settlements received by prior holders ), 59 (assumption of risk), and 61 (economic loss) for which Defendant did not oppose summary judgment. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiffs on Defendant's affirmative defenses of loss mitigation offset, waiver, ratification, acq uiescence, forfeiture, and estoppel. In all other respects, Plaintiffs' and Defendant's cross motions for partial summary judgment are denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 289 and 299. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jeannette A. Vargas on 8/24/2026) (jca)