Plaintiffs fail to allege any pecuniary loss attributable to the RESPA violation. See Hutchinson v. Delaware Sav. Bank FSB, 410 F.Supp.2d 374, 383 (D.N.J.2006) (“[Ajlleging a breach of RESPA duties alone does not state a claim under RESPA. Plaintiffs must, at a minimum, also allege that the breach resulted in actual damages.”); Ginn v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Ginn), 465 B.R. 84, 95-96 (Bankr.D.S.C.2012) (noting “even if CitiMortgage did not comply with the RESPA provisions pertaining to QWRs [ ] [pjlaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that they suffered actual and/or statutory damages resulting from CitiMortgage’s alleged RESPA violation”); Wittenberg v. First Indep. Mortg. Co., No. 3:10-CV-58, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39310, at *45, 2011 WL 1357483, at *16 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 11, 2011) (<HOLDING>); Frazile v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 382 Fed. Appx.
holding that the district court must find a total failure to respond to the discovery requested holding a plaintiff must allege that the loan servicers failure to properly respond to a qwr caused pecuniary damage holding that a pro se party must be advised of consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion including an explanation that the failure to respond  may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction holding that plaintiffs failure to respond to argument warranted dismissal with prejudice