IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, PLAINTIFF,

Case No: 11-2009-CA-010712

v. WILLIAM MARTINEZ , DEFENDANT.

_______________________________ /

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY PLAINTIFF

1. The Plaintiff, in its Motion for Substitution of Party Plaintiff, claimed that Aurora Loan Services, LLC transferred its interest in the servicing of the loan to Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, on June 12, 2012. However, in the Plaintiffs Response to Request For Production, dated June 20, 2012, Plaintiff states that it is still the holder of the Note.

2. Furthermore, while the Interrogatories and Request For Production were served simultaneously on Plaintiff, the Request For Production was responded to by the original Plaintiff, Aurora Loan Services, LLC, while the Answer to Defendants First Set of Interrogatories was responded by Nationstar Mortgage, LLC on August 9th, 2012. The Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff was filed subsequent to this date (August 13, 2012) and no hearing granting a substitution had been heard. Allowing the Plaintiff to choose which Plaintiffs respond to Interrogatories and Requests to Produce is prejudicial to the Defendant and should not be allowed, especially in light of the fact that no Substitution had yet been allowed by the Court.

3. The Parties had a pre-trial conference on August 6, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff gave no indication in this pretrial conference that it intended to make a Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff despite having filed the Motion three days prior to the Pre-Trial Conference. Defendant did not receive the Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff until on or around August 7, 2012. This Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff was not brought before the Court prior to the August 6th deadline for Discovery Motions. Allowing such substitution without allowing Defendant expanded and complete opportunity for discovery would be extremely prejudicial to the Defendant.

4. Plaintiff is attempting to substitute a party plaintiff without establishing that the original party Plaintiff in fact had standing to bring the initial lawsuit. In response to Defendants Request for Production, Plaintiff Aurora Loan Servicers, LLC provided a Corporate Assignment of Mortgage between MERS and Aurora Loan Services, LLC. This Assignment was signed by Theodore Schultz, Vice President. Mr. Schultz is a known Robo-signer (see attached Exhibit). As a result, the Assignment upon which Plaintiff relies in order to Substitute Party Plaintiff must be questioned. By allowing such substitution, Plaintiff is insulating itself from discovery associated with Aurora Loan Services.

Therefore, based on the conflicting discovery provided by Plaintiff, as well as Plaintiffs failure to notify this Court as well as the Defendant in a timely manner of Aurora Loan Services, LLCs no longer having an interest in this case. the Court should deny the Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff and because the Plaintiff admitted it its Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff that it is not the correct Plaintiff in this case, this action should be dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted, __________________________________ Mitchell W. Soligan, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0909734 3745 NE 171 Street, Suite #33 North Miami Beach, FL 33160, Telephone: (954) 394-8971

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail on this 11th day of September, 2012 to Ruth Jean, Esq., 1800 NW 49th Street, Suite 120, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309.

________________________________ Mitchell W. Soligan, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0909734 3745 NE 171 Street, Suite #33 North Miami Beach, FL 33160, Telephone: (954) 394-8971