Batres et al v. Homecomings Financial, LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED Granting the Motion to Dismiss Party Defendants Aurora Loan Services LLC and MERS (Doc. 24). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Aurora Loan Services LLC and MERS. This action therefore is dismissed in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying all other pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 11/9/10.(LAD)

Batres et al v. Homecomings Financial, LLC et al

Doc. 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ) (1)Homecomings Financial LLC ) (2)Aurora Loan Services LLC (3)Mortgage Electronic Registrations) ) Systems, Inc. ) (4) Does. ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Juan Batres, et al.,

No. CV 10-1276-PHX-JAT ORDER

On October 13, 2010, the Plaintiffs moved to dismiss their case without prejudice (Doc. 19). Because a Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. 11) had been filed, Plaintiffs needed an order from the Court or stipulation of the Defendants to obtain a dismissal. F.R.Civ.P. 41(a). Defendant Homecomings Financial LLC stipulated to dismissal without prejudice (Doc. 20), and the Court accordingly granted dismissal without prejudice as to that Defendant (Doc. 21). At the Rule 16 Conference on November 1, 2010 (Doc. 22), the Court asked the remaining Defendants, Aurora Loan Services LLC and Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (MERS), if they would consent to dismissal without prejudice. The remaining Defendants indicated that they would not accept a dismissal without prejudice, and Plaintiffs

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

indicated they did not want a dismissal with prejudice. The Court therefore entered a Scheduling Order. (Doc. 23.) On November 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 24) as to Defendants Aurora Loan Services and MERS. Plaintiffs have indicated that they now are willing to have their claims against Aurora and MERS dismissed with prejudice. The only objection to dismissal voiced by the remaining Defendants at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference was the lack of prejudice. Because Plaintiffs have now consented to dismissal with prejudice, the Court sees no reason not to grant that request. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED Granting the Motion to Dismiss Party Defendants Aurora Loan Services LLC and MERS (Doc. 24). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Aurora Loan Services LLC and MERS. This action therefore is dismissed in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying all other pending motions as moot. DATED this 9th day of November, 2010.

-2-