Munoz

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 EFRAIN MUNOZ, individually and on 4 behalf of all others similarly situated, 5 et al., No. 1:08-cv-00759-MMB-BAM 6 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER RESPECTING 8 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 9 v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 11 PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 12 et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 In this class action, Plaintiffs (a class of home-loan borrowers) allege that 16 PHH Mortgage Corporation referred them to one of four primary mortgage in- 17 surers. They also allege that all four insurers signed reinsurance agreements 18 with Atrium, PHH’s captive reinsurer, in a kickback scheme that violated the 19 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Pend- 20 ing before this court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on standing 21 grounds, ECF 577. 22 Shortly after the final pretrial conference, the Supreme Court decided 23 TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021). In TransUnion, the Court 24 clarified the…