Our firm, XXXX XXXX, has been monitoring our client 's request for mortgage assistance with Wells Fargo ( " WF '' ) to ensure WF 's compliance with Regulation X. Since XXXX 2015, our client has been actively trying to get her application reviewed in order to begin paying her mortgage and save her home. Despite all her efforts over the past several months, WF never sent the client a letter stating the results of her review. Instead, she received a letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2015 stating she was n't being reviewed anymore because she never provided the requested documents. Since we had provided all of the requested documents and certainly all the documents necessary for a mortgage assistance evaluation, there was no reason the Borrower should have received a letter stating such. After filing our first CFPB complaint against WF in connection with this file and a few more substantive Notices of Error, we were finally informed that WF never evaluated the client because XXXX of the forms was missing a checked box. We believe this was an error. 
Moreover, we received notice soon after the XXXX XXXX letter that the Plaintiff in the active foreclosure case ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) had moved to reset the foreclosure sale date of the Borrower 's home. The motion was submitted ex parte for the Judge 's review and was executed in chambers without a hearing on XXXX XXXX, 2015. Our firm quickly filed a motion to vacate the order resetting the sale date, which was heard on XXXX XXXX, 2015 at XXXX. During that hearing, the Honorable Judge XXXX XXXX granted our motion to vacate the order, which cancelled the scheduled sale date, and stated Plaintiff must not move to reset the sale date again until the Borrower either received a loan modification or a proper denial letter. A copy of the order is attached to this complaint. 
Right after the hearing on XXXX XXXX, we submitted a Request for Information to WF for information related to its loss mitigation programs and to determine what exact documents were needed for a complete package to be evaluated to avoid any future " document issues. '' WF sent a response dated XXXX XXXX, 2015. However, the response failed to provide any of the requested information and instead stated the Borrower should contact the Home Preservation team as the response to every information request related to loss mitigation. 
On XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff moved to reschedule the foreclosure sale again without providing the Borrower either a proper denial letter or a loan modification as the Judge 's Order required. This motion was also submitted for review ex parte and signed without a hearing on XXXX XXXX. Now this is the second time the sale of the Borrower 's home has been improperly rescheduled due to the actions of Plaintiff 's counsel and the failure of WF to provide accurate information to the Plaintiff, which it has the responsibility to do as the servicer. 
