United Wholesale Mortgage is preparing to ask a New York court to dismiss Rocket Mortgage’s $100 million lawsuit over alleged violations of mortgage servicing rights agreements, arguing that Rocket’s claims conflict with the contracts and rely on unsupported allegations.
In a July 20 joint filing, UWM said its anticipated motion to dismiss would argue that Rocket’s primary legal theory is inconsistent with the language of the agreements and that its remaining allegations are conclusory and contradicted by documentary evidence.
UWM asked the court to postpone discovery and initial disclosures until after the motion is decided, arguing that dismissal could eliminate or substantially narrow the case.
UWM said its deadline to respond to the complaint was July 31, and the parties jointly proposed using that date as the deadline for its dismissal motion. Under the proposed schedule, Rocket’s opposition would be due Oct. 1, followed by UWM’s reply 30 days later. The court had not approved that timetable before Justice Patel recused herself on July 22.
Rocket filed the lawsuit on May 14, 2026, as successor to Nationstar Mortgage, which operated as Mr. Cooper before being acquired by Rocket. The complaint alleges that Mr. Cooper paid UWM $773 million for servicing rights covering nearly 182,000 loans with approximately $65 billion in unpaid principal balance.
Under the agreements, UWM allegedly agreed not to solicit borrowers whose servicing rights had been sold to Mr. Cooper, while retaining the ability to accept borrower-initiated refinance applications and conduct mass advertising directed at the general public.
Rocket claims UWM violated those restrictions through its Refi75 promotion, KEEP refinance technology and Refi Shield 100 program. It alleges that the affected loans were prepaid at approximately 2.5 times the rate of comparable pools, causing nearly $100 million in damages.
Those allegations have not been proven in court.
UWM Defends Each Refinance Program
UWM’s filing disputes Rocket’s allegations program by program.
Refi75
UWM argues that Refi75 qualified as permissible mass advertising rather than targeted solicitation.
The program offered a 75-basis-point pricing incentive between Sept. 4 and Oct. 31, 2024. UWM contends that the promotion was publicized through press releases and media coverage and was broadly available to borrowers who qualified for the covered refinance products.
According to UWM, that made Refi75 a general advertising program allowed under the agreements, not a prohibited effort directed specifically at Mr. Cooper borrowers.
Rocket counters that UWM made no effort to exclude loans covered by the servicing-rights agreements from the program.
KEEP
UWM also argues that Rocket has not alleged sufficient facts showing that its KEEP refinance-alert technology contacted borrowers whose loans were serviced by Mr. Cooper.
UWM cited its 2024 annual report, which describes KEEP as using artificial intelligence to identify refinancing opportunities for borrowers in UWM’s servicing portfolio.
The company contends that Rocket’s complaint does not identify facts showing KEEP reached borrowers whose servicing rights were held by Nationstar rather than UWM.
Rocket counters that UWM’s original press release announcing KEEP did not state that the tool was limited to loans serviced by UWM. Rocket argues that the competing descriptions create a factual dispute that cannot be resolved before discovery.
Refi Shield 100
UWM’s most direct damages argument concerns Refi Shield 100, which was introduced during the week of March 31, 2025.
UWM argues that Rocket failed to identify a single loan refinanced through the program.
It also points to Rocket’s allegation that Mr. Cooper completed a prepayment analysis by February 2025, at least one month before Refi Shield 100 was announced.
UWM maintains that any damages reflected in that analysis could not have been caused by a program that had not yet launched. It also notes that Rocket did not attach the analysis to its complaint or provide further detail about its findings.
Rocket counters that the February 2025 review was only an initial damages analysis. Its complaint alleges that losses were ongoing and increased after UWM CEO Mat Ishbia encouraged brokers to pursue additional refinances.
Rocket also points to Ishbia’s alleged statements directing brokers to refinance loans whose servicing rights UWM had sold to Mr. Cooper as evidence that Refi Shield 100 was specifically targeted at the disputed portfolio.
UWM Questions Timing Of Lawsuit
UWM also highlighted the timing of the litigation.
The lender noted that Nationstar did not sue UWM before Rocket acquired it, even though Refi75 and KEEP were launched in September 2024.
UWM characterized Nationstar primarily as a mortgage servicer and not a significant origination competitor. It contrasted that relationship with Rocket, which it described as UWM’s chief mortgage-origination rival.
UWM included that chronology as part of its challenge to Rocket’s claims, although its joint statement does not identify Nationstar’s failure to sue earlier as a separate basis for dismissal.
Rocket Says UWM Is Disputing Facts
Rocket maintains that it adequately pleaded a breach-of-contract claim by identifying the agreements, its performance, UWM’s alleged breaches and resulting damages.
In a July 21 follow-up letter, Rocket argued that UWM is contesting factual allegations rather than identifying a defect that warrants dismissal at the pleading stage.
Rocket contends that UWM failed to exclude the covered Mr. Cooper loans from Refi75 and KEEP and that Refi Shield 100 was expressly directed at loans serviced by Mr. Cooper.
“Given the serious harm done by UWM’s breaches, Mr. Cooper is looking forward to pursuing expeditious discovery so that it can ultimately prove its claims and obtain redress for the harm done to it,” Rocket’s attorneys wrote.
Rocket Proposed Discovery Through Late 2027
Rocket separately submitted an unsigned proposed preliminary conference order designating the case as complex and contemplating discovery continuing through December 2027.
Under Rocket’s proposal, document production would be completed by April 15, 2027, depositions by Aug. 13, 2027, expert discovery by Nov. 12, 2027 and all discovery by Dec. 15, 2027. Rocket also proposed a trial-readiness conference for Feb. 10, 2028.
UWM did not agree to the proposed order, and the court did not sign it. Instead, the defendant asked the court to defer discovery until after deciding its anticipated dismissal motion.
The litigation was further complicated when Justice Anar Rathod Patel recused herself on July 22 and directed that the matter be reassigned to another judge. The recusal did not address the merits of either side’s position.
The newly assigned judge will determine the next procedural steps, including whether UWM may proceed with its anticipated dismissal motion and whether discovery should begin while that motion is pending.
Bottom Line
The dispute could help define how far lenders and their broker networks may go in marketing refinances after selling servicing rights subject to non-solicitation restrictions. The immediate question is whether Rocket has alleged enough to survive UWM’s anticipated dismissal motion and proceed into discovery.
*This article was drafted with AI assistance and reviewed and edited by a human editor before publication.
