Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051
OF958 - N3
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
THOMAS LANE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 22CV-3051
U.S. BANK N.A. as TRUSTEE, et al., (JUDGE FRYE)
Defendants.
DECISION, AND FINAL JUDGMENT
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CHANGE CASE CATEGORY
AS MOOT;
(Motion filed May 10, 2022)
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT;
(Motion filed June 7, 2022)
and
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE, SUA SPONTE.
I. Introduction.
On May 6, 2022, Thomas Lane brought this case pro se against defendants U.S.
Bank N.A. as Trustee, and GMAC Mortgage, LLC.
Mr. Lane alleges the defendants committed a “fraud upon the court” by making a
false statement to the Tenth District Court of Appeals in their appellee brief filed in Case
No. 20AP-335. Specifically, Mr. Lane argues that the appellees referenced a declaration
made by Attorney Walter Mahone in their brief, but failed to submit the declaration and
are unable to do so because the declaration doesn’t exist. The complaint is explicit that
“Defendants entered [sic] false and misleading statements into [sic] their Appellee Brief
— Exhibit A.” (1.4). Furthermore, it reiterates that “[t]his statement caused the trial court
and the appeals court to decide without having a formal trial.” 117.
Attached to the complaint is a copy of the appellate brief filed by U.S. Bank on
October 12, 2020. (Pl. Exhibit “A”). As noted, it is incorporated by reference at {l 4.
On May 10, plaintiff moved to change the case category for this case from personal
injury (Category C) to Foreclosure (Category E). On June 7, counsel for U.S. Bank N.A.,
as Trustee for Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051
OF958 - N3
Through Certifies, Series 2005-EFCF (“U.S. Bank”) moved for a 28-day extension to
respond to the complaint. As explained below, because the allegations in the complaint
cannot possibly give rise to legal liability for either defendant, those motions are moot
and the case must be dismissed.
Il. Factual History.
This is the latest in a line of multiple cases related to the same issues. In addition
to the appellee’s brief attached to Mr. Lane’s complaint, courts may take judicial notice of
publicly available docket entries when the records “are not subject to reasonable dispute
insofar as their impact on the present case.” State ex rel. Covington v. Lynch, 10th Dist.
No. 20AP-581, 2021-Ohio-2083, 1 25. See also State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Hawkins,
10th Dist. No. 19AP-199, 2020-Ohio-2690, {1 33, citing Evid.R. 201(B). This is especially
true when it concerns a past action previously before the same court. “[A] trial court is
not required to suffer from institutional amnesia. It is axiomatic that a trial court may
take judicial notice of its own docket.” Indus. Risk Insurers v. Lorenz Equip. Co., 69 Ohio
St.3d 576, 580, 1994-Ohio-442, 635 N.E.2d 14.
Courts may take judicial notice of appellate decisions or “decisional law.” Civ. R.
44.1(A)(1); State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195, 2007-Ohio-4798, 874
N.E.2d 516, { 8, 10 (holding that a court may take judicial notice of appellate decisions,
pleadings, and public records available on the internet). Thus, the Decision in Case No.
20AP-335 — referenced in this new complaint at {4 — may be consulted too. Lane v. U.S.
Bank, N.A., 2021-Ohio-1891 (June 3, 2021). In that very similar case before the Tenth
District Court of Appeals just last year Mr. Lane sued the same defendants. The Decision
summarizes the procedural background of the litigation.
Mr. Lane’s appeal to the Tenth District was taken from the trial court’s sua sponte
dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Mr. Lane alleged that the
same defendants made false and misleading statements in an appellee brief, filed in a
previous appeal. Mr. Lane moved for default judgment against both defendants in Case
No. 19CV-7923. The court referred the matter to a Magistrate for a hearing on whether
fraud was properly pleaded in the complaint, and for a recommendation on Lane’s motion
for default judgment. Mr. Lane presented evidence of an order issued by the undersigned
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051
OF958 - N3
court in 2010 in a foreclosure case, styled o8CV-7360.1 He claimed that the 2010 order
relied upon false statements made in the opposing party’s motion, which in turn had
allegedly been based upon an affidavit from Lane’s then-attorney, Walter Mahone. The
source of the alleged misstatement was a June 9, 2009 memorandum opposing plaintiff's
motion for the confirmation of a foreclosure sale.
After a hearing the Magistrate issued a 13-page decision finding that Lane failed to
present evidence identifying when, where, or how the false statement was made. The
Magistrate recommended dismissal of Mr. Lane’s complaint, which the trial court
adopted. Mr. Lane appealed that judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
This new case is purportedly based upon a statement made by U.S. Bank in its
appeals court brief in 20AP-335, specifically a reference to the Mahone affidavit made
while describing the background of the litigation. In support of this new fraud claim, Mr.
Lane alleges that “On OCT. 12, 2020 case no. AP 2020 000335 Defendants entered false
and misleading statements into their Appellee Brief — Exhibit A. [sic]” (Comp., 1 4) and
that “this statement caused the trial court and the appeals court to decide without having
a formal trial.” (Comp., 1.7)
Il, Law and Analysis.
A court may, without notice, sua sponte dismiss a complaint with prejudice if it is
clearly frivolous or it is obvious from the face of the complaint that a plaintiff cannot
prevail on the facts as pled or reasonably inferred. Bullard v. McDonald's, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 20AP-374, 2021-Ohio-1505, {| 10; State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 147 Ohio
St.3d 462, 2016-Ohio-5781, 1.12, 67 N.E.3d 755; see also, State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo
City School Dist. Bd. Of Education, 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 108 (1995) (Per Curiam).
Here, it is clear that no relief can be granted on the facts alleged in Mr. Lane’s
complaint. There is no genuine dispute about one key point: plaintiff’s sole allegation of
fraud is premised upon a statement made in a formal legal brief within a judicial
proceeding. As such, the statement is protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege
applicable to judicial proceedings.
* As a matter of coincidence, Case No. o8CV-7360 was assigned to the undersigned Judge for
adjudication. This matter is not a “re-filed” case but was assigned to the same court on a random basis.
3
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051
OF958 - N3
Ohio has a well-settled rule that an absolute privilege attaches to statements made
in a judicial proceeding so long as they bear some relation to the proceeding. The syllabus
paragraph in Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986) held:
As a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege
in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was
made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the
allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the
judicial proceeding in which it appears.
Surace was followed in Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio St.3d 458, 613 N.E.2d 585, at
Syllabus {| 2. The Supreme Court of Ohio held as recently as 2020 that this absolute
privilege applies to various types of claims when the underlying statements were made in
a judicial proceeding. Reister v. Gardner, 164 Ohio St.3d 546, 2020-Ohio-5484, 114. And
in the Tenth District, there is no civil action for “perjury, subornation of perjury, and
conspiracy to commit perjury” despite the fact that such conduct is punishable under
criminal statutes. Anderson v. Smith, 196 Ohio App.3d 540, 2011-Ohio-5619 (10¢ Dist.),
{| 13 and cases cited. Broadly stated, the law protects against suits premised upon
statements made in judicial proceedings.?
The reasoning behind this privilege is well-illustrated here. Without it, there is an
infinite potential for re-drawing and re-echoing claims based upon litigation arguments,
with each new case straying further and further from the underlying substantive dispute.
And, if every statement in a court proceeding could be pulled up and become the basis for
a new lawsuit disputes would never end for litigants and the court system would drown
in meaningless work. So, the privilege for statements in judicial proceedings about an
alleged piece of evidence — “a declaration from attorney Walter Mahone’ — is dispositive
and requires plaintiff's case to be dismissed.
Furthermore, plaintiff's claim appears to be identical to a previously decided cause
of action. “Under the doctrine of res judicata, '[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the
? Recent appellate decisions also apply the absolute privilege against various types of claims when
statements were made in judicial proceedings. Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal, L.P.A. v. Hilgeman,
and Dist. Nos. 28581 and 28838, 2021-Ohio-3049, 178 N.E.3d 71, 1] 111-112; Simpson v. Voiture
Nationale La Societe Des Quarante Hommes, 2"4 Dist. No. 29016, 2021-Ohio-2131, 4 15; State v. Brown,
1%t Dist. No. C-190399, 2021-Ohio-597, 1 18; Newman v. Univ. of Dayton, 2°4 Dist. No. 28815, 2021-
Ohio-1609, {| 44, and cases cited; Hershey v. Edelman, 187 Ohio App.3d 400, 2010-Ohio-1992, {| 32 (10%
Dist.).
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051
OF958 - N3
merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action." Holbrook v. OhioHealth
Corp., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-507, 2015-Ohio-2354, {| 15. This newly filed case
includes the same three parties as the case decided last year in the Tenth District.
Plaintiff's attempt to fold-in a reference to the offending declaration, made while briefing
the case on appeal, does not constitute a new, distinct harm given the prior history
reviewed above. This new case — purportedly making a fraud claim — is therefore subject
to dismissal under Civ. R. 9(B) for failure to allege with particularity a “fraud” which is
new and not barred by the res judicata doctrine.
For these reasons plaintiff Thomas Lane’s complaint in this case is DISMISSED
in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion to change the case category, and defendants’ motion for
an extension of time are denied as MOOT.
FINAL JUDGMENT
For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Decision, final judgment is entered in
favor of Defendants U.S. Bank and GMAC Mortgage, LLC. and against Thomas Lane.
The claim of plaintiff Thomas Lane is dismissed with prejudice. The court costs
are taxed against plaintiff.
*** THIS IS A FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER. ***
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Instructions to Clerk’s Office:
Mail Copy to:
Thomas Lane
4878 Dorchester Street
Groveport, Ohio 43125
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051
OF958 - N3
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
Date: 06-08-2022
Case Title: THOMAS LANE -VS- US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE ET AL
Case Number: 22CV003051
Type: JUDGMENT ENTRY
It Is So Ordered.
/s/ Judge Richard A. Frye
Electronically signed on 2022-Jun-08 page 6 of 6
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051
OF958 - N3
Court Disposition
Case Number: 22CV003051
Case Style: THOMAS LANE -VS- US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE ET AL
Case Terminated: 18 - Other Terminations
Final Appealable Order: Yes
Motion Tie Off Information:
1. Motion CMS Document Id: 22CV0030512022-06-0799970000
Document Title: 06-07-2022-MOTION TO EXTEND TIME -
DEFENDANT: US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE
Disposition: MOTION RELEASED TO CLEAR DOCKET
2. Motion CMS Document Id: 22CV0030512022-05- 1099980000
Document Title: 05-10-2022-MOTION - PLAINTIFF: THOMAS
LANE - CHANGE CASE TYPE TO FORECLOSURE
Disposition: MOTION RELEASED TO CLEAR DOCKET
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051 OF958 - N3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION THOMAS LANE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 22CV-3051 U.S. BANK N.A. as TRUSTEE, et al., (JUDGE FRYE) Defendants. DECISION, AND FINAL JUDGMENT DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CHANGE CASE CATEGORY AS MOOT; (Motion filed May 10, 2022) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT; (Motion filed June 7, 2022) and DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, SUA SPONTE. I. Introduction. On May 6, 2022, Thomas Lane brought this case pro se against defendants U.S. Bank N.A. as Trustee, and GMAC Mortgage, LLC. Mr. Lane alleges the defendants committed a “fraud upon the court” by making a false statement to the Tenth District Court of Appeals in their appellee brief filed in Case No. 20AP-335. Specifically, Mr. Lane argues that the appellees referenced a declaration made by Attorney Walter Mahone in their brief, but failed to submit the declaration and are unable to do so because the declaration doesn’t exist. The complaint is explicit that “Defendants entered [sic] false and misleading statements into [sic] their Appellee Brief — Exhibit A.” (1.4). Furthermore, it reiterates that “[t]his statement caused the trial court and the appeals court to decide without having a formal trial.” 117. Attached to the complaint is a copy of the appellate brief filed by U.S. Bank on October 12, 2020. (Pl. Exhibit “A”). As noted, it is incorporated by reference at {l 4. On May 10, plaintiff moved to change the case category for this case from personal injury (Category C) to Foreclosure (Category E). On June 7, counsel for U.S. Bank N.A., as Trustee for Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass- Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051 OF958 - N3 Through Certifies, Series 2005-EFCF (“U.S. Bank”) moved for a 28-day extension to respond to the complaint. As explained below, because the allegations in the complaint cannot possibly give rise to legal liability for either defendant, those motions are moot and the case must be dismissed. Il. Factual History. This is the latest in a line of multiple cases related to the same issues. In addition to the appellee’s brief attached to Mr. Lane’s complaint, courts may take judicial notice of publicly available docket entries when the records “are not subject to reasonable dispute insofar as their impact on the present case.” State ex rel. Covington v. Lynch, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-581, 2021-Ohio-2083, 1 25. See also State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Hawkins, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-199, 2020-Ohio-2690, {1 33, citing Evid.R. 201(B). This is especially true when it concerns a past action previously before the same court. “[A] trial court is not required to suffer from institutional amnesia. It is axiomatic that a trial court may take judicial notice of its own docket.” Indus. Risk Insurers v. Lorenz Equip. Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 576, 580, 1994-Ohio-442, 635 N.E.2d 14. Courts may take judicial notice of appellate decisions or “decisional law.” Civ. R. 44.1(A)(1); State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195, 2007-Ohio-4798, 874 N.E.2d 516, { 8, 10 (holding that a court may take judicial notice of appellate decisions, pleadings, and public records available on the internet). Thus, the Decision in Case No. 20AP-335 — referenced in this new complaint at {4 — may be consulted too. Lane v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2021-Ohio-1891 (June 3, 2021). In that very similar case before the Tenth District Court of Appeals just last year Mr. Lane sued the same defendants. The Decision summarizes the procedural background of the litigation. Mr. Lane’s appeal to the Tenth District was taken from the trial court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Mr. Lane alleged that the same defendants made false and misleading statements in an appellee brief, filed in a previous appeal. Mr. Lane moved for default judgment against both defendants in Case No. 19CV-7923. The court referred the matter to a Magistrate for a hearing on whether fraud was properly pleaded in the complaint, and for a recommendation on Lane’s motion for default judgment. Mr. Lane presented evidence of an order issued by the undersigned Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051 OF958 - N3 court in 2010 in a foreclosure case, styled o8CV-7360.1 He claimed that the 2010 order relied upon false statements made in the opposing party’s motion, which in turn had allegedly been based upon an affidavit from Lane’s then-attorney, Walter Mahone. The source of the alleged misstatement was a June 9, 2009 memorandum opposing plaintiff's motion for the confirmation of a foreclosure sale. After a hearing the Magistrate issued a 13-page decision finding that Lane failed to present evidence identifying when, where, or how the false statement was made. The Magistrate recommended dismissal of Mr. Lane’s complaint, which the trial court adopted. Mr. Lane appealed that judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed. This new case is purportedly based upon a statement made by U.S. Bank in its appeals court brief in 20AP-335, specifically a reference to the Mahone affidavit made while describing the background of the litigation. In support of this new fraud claim, Mr. Lane alleges that “On OCT. 12, 2020 case no. AP 2020 000335 Defendants entered false and misleading statements into their Appellee Brief — Exhibit A. [sic]” (Comp., 1 4) and that “this statement caused the trial court and the appeals court to decide without having a formal trial.” (Comp., 1.7) Il, Law and Analysis. A court may, without notice, sua sponte dismiss a complaint with prejudice if it is clearly frivolous or it is obvious from the face of the complaint that a plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts as pled or reasonably inferred. Bullard v. McDonald's, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 20AP-374, 2021-Ohio-1505, {| 10; State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 147 Ohio St.3d 462, 2016-Ohio-5781, 1.12, 67 N.E.3d 755; see also, State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. Of Education, 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 108 (1995) (Per Curiam). Here, it is clear that no relief can be granted on the facts alleged in Mr. Lane’s complaint. There is no genuine dispute about one key point: plaintiff’s sole allegation of fraud is premised upon a statement made in a formal legal brief within a judicial proceeding. As such, the statement is protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege applicable to judicial proceedings. * As a matter of coincidence, Case No. o8CV-7360 was assigned to the undersigned Judge for adjudication. This matter is not a “re-filed” case but was assigned to the same court on a random basis. 3 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051 OF958 - N3 Ohio has a well-settled rule that an absolute privilege attaches to statements made in a judicial proceeding so long as they bear some relation to the proceeding. The syllabus paragraph in Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986) held: As a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears. Surace was followed in Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio St.3d 458, 613 N.E.2d 585, at Syllabus {| 2. The Supreme Court of Ohio held as recently as 2020 that this absolute privilege applies to various types of claims when the underlying statements were made in a judicial proceeding. Reister v. Gardner, 164 Ohio St.3d 546, 2020-Ohio-5484, 114. And in the Tenth District, there is no civil action for “perjury, subornation of perjury, and conspiracy to commit perjury” despite the fact that such conduct is punishable under criminal statutes. Anderson v. Smith, 196 Ohio App.3d 540, 2011-Ohio-5619 (10¢ Dist.), {| 13 and cases cited. Broadly stated, the law protects against suits premised upon statements made in judicial proceedings.? The reasoning behind this privilege is well-illustrated here. Without it, there is an infinite potential for re-drawing and re-echoing claims based upon litigation arguments, with each new case straying further and further from the underlying substantive dispute. And, if every statement in a court proceeding could be pulled up and become the basis for a new lawsuit disputes would never end for litigants and the court system would drown in meaningless work. So, the privilege for statements in judicial proceedings about an alleged piece of evidence — “a declaration from attorney Walter Mahone’ — is dispositive and requires plaintiff's case to be dismissed. Furthermore, plaintiff's claim appears to be identical to a previously decided cause of action. “Under the doctrine of res judicata, '[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the ? Recent appellate decisions also apply the absolute privilege against various types of claims when statements were made in judicial proceedings. Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal, L.P.A. v. Hilgeman, and Dist. Nos. 28581 and 28838, 2021-Ohio-3049, 178 N.E.3d 71, 1] 111-112; Simpson v. Voiture Nationale La Societe Des Quarante Hommes, 2"4 Dist. No. 29016, 2021-Ohio-2131, 4 15; State v. Brown, 1%t Dist. No. C-190399, 2021-Ohio-597, 1 18; Newman v. Univ. of Dayton, 2°4 Dist. No. 28815, 2021- Ohio-1609, {| 44, and cases cited; Hershey v. Edelman, 187 Ohio App.3d 400, 2010-Ohio-1992, {| 32 (10% Dist.). Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051 OF958 - N3 merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action." Holbrook v. OhioHealth Corp., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-507, 2015-Ohio-2354, {| 15. This newly filed case includes the same three parties as the case decided last year in the Tenth District. Plaintiff's attempt to fold-in a reference to the offending declaration, made while briefing the case on appeal, does not constitute a new, distinct harm given the prior history reviewed above. This new case — purportedly making a fraud claim — is therefore subject to dismissal under Civ. R. 9(B) for failure to allege with particularity a “fraud” which is new and not barred by the res judicata doctrine. For these reasons plaintiff Thomas Lane’s complaint in this case is DISMISSED in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion to change the case category, and defendants’ motion for an extension of time are denied as MOOT. FINAL JUDGMENT For the reasons set forth in the foregoing Decision, final judgment is entered in favor of Defendants U.S. Bank and GMAC Mortgage, LLC. and against Thomas Lane. The claim of plaintiff Thomas Lane is dismissed with prejudice. The court costs are taxed against plaintiff. *** THIS IS A FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER. *** IT IS SO ORDERED. Instructions to Clerk’s Office: Mail Copy to: Thomas Lane 4878 Dorchester Street Groveport, Ohio 43125 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051 OF958 - N3 Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Date: 06-08-2022 Case Title: THOMAS LANE -VS- US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE ET AL Case Number: 22CV003051 Type: JUDGMENT ENTRY It Is So Ordered. /s/ Judge Richard A. Frye Electronically signed on 2022-Jun-08 page 6 of 6 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jun 09 11:05 AM-22CV003051 OF958 - N3 Court Disposition Case Number: 22CV003051 Case Style: THOMAS LANE -VS- US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE ET AL Case Terminated: 18 - Other Terminations Final Appealable Order: Yes Motion Tie Off Information: 1. Motion CMS Document Id: 22CV0030512022-06-0799970000 Document Title: 06-07-2022-MOTION TO EXTEND TIME - DEFENDANT: US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE Disposition: MOTION RELEASED TO CLEAR DOCKET 2. Motion CMS Document Id: 22CV0030512022-05- 1099980000 Document Title: 05-10-2022-MOTION - PLAINTIFF: THOMAS LANE - CHANGE CASE TYPE TO FORECLOSURE Disposition: MOTION RELEASED TO CLEAR DOCKET