The motion sought to extend Mutual of Omaha’s time to respond to Longbridge’s move for a preliminary injunction to March 28; to push a hearing date on the motion from March 14 to April 14; to grant a motion by Longbridge to file an “oversize” motion; and to allow Mutual of Omaha and other case defendants the opportunity to match Longbridge’s page count in its own response materials.
All requests were granted by Judge Dana Sabraw earlier this week.
Mutual of Omaha and its co-defendants said in the filing that they intend to call their own expert witness to offer “rebuttal testimony” to material from a witness retained by Longbridge, who offered a professional opinion on the veracity of the allegations.
But organizing a substantive response will take additional time, and all parties agreed that it was prudent to extend the deadlines in the case to allow for it. Sabraw agreed, saying “good cause” had been shown for the requests.
The filings also indicated that the two lenders are continuing to dialogue in “meet and confer discussions.” Under California law, this requires a “reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue” during the discovery process, according to the California Lawyers Association.
The complexity of these discussions generally need to “reflect the same level of persuasive effort as the discovery motion itself,” the association said.
Longbridge initially filed the lawsuit in September 2024, alleging that websites it claims are maintained by Mutual of Omaha are both deceptive and in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) as well as guidance from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
A December filing in the case also indicated that discussions are ongoing regarding a potential settlement that could avoid a trial altogether. Lawyers for Mutual of Omaha stated that both companies were at the point in the opening phases of negotiations for an end to the legal dispute that could happen prior to a jury trial.
Neither party has offered an update since then on how or if these negotiations are progressing. Last month, Mutual of Omaha filed a countersuit against Longbridge, denying allegations that it misled potential customers while demanding a jury trial.
Mutual of Omaha also called for litigation to determine monetary losses inflicted upon it due to its accusation that Longbridge “is engaging in a targeted effort to interfere with [Mutual’s] marketing and business development, in an attempt to disrupt [Mutual’s] business and unfairly favor itself.”
In its preliminary injunction filing, Longbridge contends that the websites at issue exist “solely to promote Mutual” by giving it “artificially inflated scores” in comparison to other reverse mortgage companies. Longbridge claims that Mutual “conceded these websites are fatally deceptive,” according to filings.
