June 24 average daily rates in Orange County for 30-year fixed loans with one-point fee: Conforming up to 6.078%, Jumbo up to 7.446% and Conforming-Jumbo up to 7.208% (Note: conforming-jumbo rates are for loans from $417,000 to $729,750, while conforming is up to $417,000 -- both types are sold to GSEs. Jumbos here are $730,000 or higher and not sold to GSEs.)
Source: Newspaper Chart Services 
Judge rules in battle of auction companies (Update)
May 23rd, 2008, 2:53 pm · 7 Comments · posted by Andrew Galvin
(Update: adds that six of seven claims against investors James Watson and Robert Campbell were dismissed)
National Home Auction Corp. must make changes to its Web site’s “how the auction works” section because it violates a copyright held by rival Real Estate Disposition Corp., a federal judge ruled this week.
However, the judge ruled that NHA doesn’t have to change its TV commercials for the time being.
The two Irvine-based foreclosure auction companies have been fighting in court since February, when REDC filed a lawsuit claiming that upstart NHA stole its trade secrets and copied its advertising. NHA has denied the accusations.
In a ruling issued Wednesday, Judge S. James Otero of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles denied NHA’s motion to dismiss the suit and partly granted REDC’s request for a preliminary injunction. Here’s a clip:
Given the presumption of irreparable harm that attaches to a finding of a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court GRANTS REDC’s Motion as to the copying of the protected portions of its website, namely its frequently asked questions section and its how the auction works section. …
The Court notes that, after REDC filed its Motion, NHA changed its frequently asked questions section. The new version of this section is sufficiently different in expression from REDC’s frequently asked questions section, such that the injunction now issued only prevents NHA from returning to publishing its older version of that section. …
As to the how the auction works section, NHA must cease from displaying this section, or make changes in a manner akin to those made under its frequently asked questions section.
Both sides claimed the ruling as a victory.
Ryan Knott, CEO of NHA, said the ruling “completely supports our position and allows us to continue to conduct our business uninterrupted by REDC. Judge Otero, after a very detailed review of all the facts, asked that one very small section of our Web site be changed, which it already has been changed, which is ‘how the auction works’. We’ve complied with the court’s request.”
Brian McCormick, an attorney for REDC, said the part of the ruling allowing NHA to continue using its television commercials is “just a technicality” and will be litigated further. “We consider the ruling very favorable and we wouldn’t consider not going forward just because we didn’t get everything we want in an injunction,” McCormick said.
Otero dismissed six of seven claims that REDC made against NHA investors James Watson and Robert Campbell, although he gave REDC leave to amend those claims.
NHA has conducted four auctions so far and has a “heavy schedule” planned for the rest of the year, Knott said.
To read Otero’s ruling, click here.
Related stories:
Impac CEO caught up in suit between two auction companies
Frenzied scene at Anaheim auction
Bidders seek bargain homes at Anaheim auction
Big auction of lender-owned homes coming to Anaheim
May 27th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Dear Mr. Gavin,
In reading this atricle I chose to go to some of links for your previous articles with regards to REDC. It appeared as if you were getting a little defensive when the issue of etthics came up. You couldn’t understand what ethics had to do the REDCs auctions. You also didn’t seem to understand what people ment by getting to the “real story”.
Now here is my point…read your article above…now read this article from Yahoo News.
******************************************
Landslide Victory for National Home Auction as Federal Judge Denies 12 of REDC’s 13 Claims Seeking Injunctive Relief
Saturday May 24, 7:15 pm ET
LOS ANGELES, May 24 /PRNewswire/ — “DENIED” was the word of the day as U.S. District Court Judge, S. James Otero DENIED 12 of the 13 claims seeking injunctive relief as issued in an Order dated May 21, 2008.
ADVERTISEMENT
“REDC and its principals have a long and storied history of reckless behavior and filing meritless lawsuits,” said Ryan Knott, CEO of National Home Auction (NHA). “They have gone to great lengths to prevent fair competition with a single focus to monopolize the auction industry which ultimately hurts assets sellers and consumers alike.”
In his ruling, Judge S. James Otero DENIED claim after claim brought in REDC’s attempt to stifle competition including:
Copyright Infringement — “REDC has not shown a fair chance of success on the merits on its television copyright claims. Request DENIED.”
Purchase Agreement and Terms & Conditions — “REDC has failed to demonstrate substantial similarity let alone identical copying. Request DENIED.”
False and Misleading Advertising — “The use of marketing terms objected to by REDC fall into the category of non-actionable. Request DENIED.”
Unfair Business Competition — “The court finds insufficient evidence by REDC to support a finding of success on the merits of case. Request DENIED.”
In conclusion, after denying 12 of 13 claims, Judge S. James Otero ordered NHA to stop using a small amount of content in the “How it Works” section of the NHA website which has been complied with.
“A recent press release issued by their litigation counsel on the pending litigation between REDC and NHA as well as their continued interference in NHA’s business, specifically, the dissemination of false information on NHA’s business and performance metrics proves what a foolish group we are dealing with,” Knott Stated. “One would think they would be far more concerned with how they plan on reconciling the state and federal complaints recently leveled by both NHA and JCR advertising. These claims, unlike their own, have real damages, not only against them, but very likely against IMPAC Mortgage and other shareholders in REDC as well.”
*********************************************************
Do you see what I mean? The partiality you show towards REDC is blantant. Some readers, like me, feel that it is an injustice to the public when you powder puff your articles in favor of an obviously extreme preditor like REDC, aka NRLL, aka Landauction.com, aka whatever they are calling themselves this week to avoid futher negative publicity.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Dear Candace:
Speaking of ethics, why are you trying to pass off a press release as a news article?
Andrew
May 27th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
My, my, my…we are deffensive, aren’t we?
I’m sorry if you feel like I am trying to “pass off” the article I used as a referrence. That was not my intent at all. I stated that I read the article on Yahoo news, and I did. Here is the exact link that was sent to me…
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080524/clsa009.html?.v=22
Again, my point is that you seem to be an advocate for REDC only because your articles are one sided, in favor of REDC. If I am wrong and there are more articles out there that give ALL the facts and not just the ones that make these guys sound like the pilsbury dough boy (all cute and cuddly), please let me know. I would LOVE to be wrong on this issue.
I absolutely admit that I am not a fan of REDC. I sincerely believe that they are more evil, selfish, gready and devious than Mortgage Brokers, who I put at the top of the blame list for the real estate fiascoe we are currently in. For some reason these men feel they are the only people entitled to the land auction industry. It’s funny how they are continually declaring they have the copywrite entitlement to an industry. They have been using the court system to monopolize land auctions. I call it funny because they got the idea from someone else who had a land auction.
Regardless, I have read numerous articles written by various reporters in various newspapers. I have noticed that all the articles printed in the Register, that I have personally read, are far more favorable towards REDC than any other paper. Some people, who know the players and the rules they go by, are wondering if this is because of the amount of money generated to the Register in advertising fees. In which case this would not be about your ethics, but of the ethics of the OC Register. Just speculating.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Dear Candace:
I believe the article above is a balanced account of a judge’s ruling in a lawsuit, with both sides given the opportunity to speak as to their interpretation of the ruling.
Andrew
May 28th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Commissar Galvonovich,
You’ve taken a real beating over these REDC articles. The funny thing is these have been fairly balanced compared to some of your reporting on the mortgage business. Anyhow, I’d like to see a series similar to your “Riding with the Sheriff” stories highlighting what happened to some of these people after they bought at auction. Were they still happy with the purchase? Or did they feel somehow swindled by the experience? I’m assuming most of the buyers understood the hidden reserve component and still thought they got a good deal.
Also, just so Candace understands… It’s typical for judges to deny preliminary injuctions and has nothing to do with whether REDC will win or lose their lawsuit. It simply means NHA can still continue to operate while the lawsuit is pending. I believe the lawsuit has to do with stolen trade secrets, which might be true since NHA was founded by former REDC employees if I remember correctly.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Our law firm has just filed a lawsuit against the real estate auction companies (REDC, Countrywide, etc.) alleging false advertising and unfair competition. If you would like information about the lawsuit or a copy of the Complaint, please email me at:
shawn@kevinspainhour.com
Thank You
June 24th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
It must not be a matter of who’s first ,
more important to be the best .
May the final result be a fair auction to the public !