United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM) has asked a federal judge in Michigan to strike proposed class-action claims in a lawsuit that accuses the lender of violating federal and state consumer protection laws. UWM argues that the case cannot legally proceed on a classwide basis.

In a reply brief filed on Dec. 16, UWM told the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan that the plaintiffs’ claims hinge on individualized broker services, borrower interactions and state-law differences that defeat class certification as a matter of law.

UWM’s reply came after Judge Brandy R. McMillion dismissed all Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organization (RICO) claims, along with most Real Estate Settlement Procedure (RESPA) claims, in October.

The reply builds upon an April 2024 suit, which was filed by plaintiffs Therisa D. Escue, Billy R. Escue, Kim Schelble and Brian P. Weatherill, each of whom obtained a mortgage through UWM.

The plaintiffs claimed that UWM violated RICO and RESPA statutes, among other allegations, which UWM has denied.

The lawsuit followed a Hunterbrook Media report released the same month. The investigation revealed that more than 8,000 loan officers at independent brokerages sent more than 99% of their mortgages to UWM in 2023, with a total value of at least $11.7 billion.

UWM was also targeted by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who has raised similar allegations against the lender.

In the April 2024 complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that UWM adopted policies that restricted brokers’ ability to shop for loans, despite marketing brokers as independent. These policies include UWM’s “All In” initiative, which bars brokers from doing business with rivals such as Rocket Mortgage and Fairway Home Mortgage, as well as a “lock-in” policy that discourages brokers from shopping a loan after it is initially locked.

McMillion ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish proximate cause for their alleged racketeering injuries. The judge wrote that while the complaint detailed UWM’s market position and broker incentives at length, it did not connect these allegations to the borrowers’ alleged injuries.

While McMillon dismissed most of the claims, she allowed only limited RESPA claims brought by two plaintiffs to proceed, as well as some state-based claims involving deceptive and unfair trade practices. As a result, two plaintiffs maintain active RESPA claims, while a third alleges the lender violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Now, in asking the judge to toss out the allegations, UWM is arguing that the complaint acknowledges brokers provided services to borrowers, requiring fees to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under federal law. Courts have said this standard prevents RESPA claims from proceeding as class actions.

The lender also said the plaintiffs lack standing because they did not suffer injuries under the laws of other states. Differences among state consumer protection laws, UWM’s counsel said, further make a nationwide class unworkable.

The plaintiffs initially sought to represent borrowers in 41 states but later narrowed that request, a move UWM called “unjustifiable” and “citing no supporting authority,” the filing reads.

Regarding the Florida claims, UWM said state law requires courts to judge deception based on the same circumstances, which it argues doesn’t fit claims about individual broker communications instead of uniform lender statements.

Neither UWM nor attorneys for either side immediately responded to HousingWire‘s requests for comment.