Lowry et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et al

Filing 73

ORDER granting 69 Defendants' Motion to Quash Stay. ORDERED that the stay entered on 4/23/2015 (Doc. 58) and made subject to the posting of a bond (Doc. 62) is VACATED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may proceed with a trustee's sale and foreclosure of Plaintiffs' residence in accordance with all applicable laws. See attached Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/27/2015.(TLB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gary F. Lowry, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-11-08177-PCT-JAT

JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Quash Stay (Doc. 69). The

16

Court previously entered a stay in this case pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, subject to

17

the imposition of an appropriate bond. The parties disputed the appropriate amount of any

18

bond, and the Court ultimately set a bond of $2,000 per month, with the first payment due

19

by 8:15 A.M. on May 14, 2015. More than twelve days after this deadline, Plaintiffs have

20

still failed to post this bond.

21

Plaintiffs’ arguments against quashing the stay amount to little more than a

22

repetition of their previous arguments in this case. The Court has previously addressed

23

these arguments, and will not do so again. See (Doc. 71). Plaintiffs raise two new

24

arguments: First, they have apparently filed a new lawsuit in state court against

25

Defendants, presumably in an effort to convince that court to issue a preliminary

26

injunction. (Doc. 70 at 2). This fact is of no relevance to the pending motion in the

27

present case, except that it further undermines Plaintiffs’ claim of good faith with respect

28

to the bond. See (Doc. 71 at 2:28-3:3). Second, Plaintiffs state that they have requested

1

Defendants review their loan modification options “with the goal of a new modification

2

application.” (Doc. 70 at 4). Because Plaintiffs have declared their indigence, it is unclear

3

how any loan modification is a viable resolution to this case. Regardless, Plaintiffs offer

4

no explanation for how their modification application permits them to evade their

5

obligation to post a bond.

6
7

The Court will quash the stay. Defendants may proceed with a trustee’s sale and
foreclosure of Plaintiffs’ residence.

8

For the foregoing reasons,

9

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Quash Stay (Doc. 69).

10
11
12
13
14

IT IS ORDERED that the stay entered on April 23, 2015 (Doc. 58) and made
subject to the posting of a bond (Doc. 62) is vacated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may proceed with a trustee’s sale
and foreclosure of Plaintiffs’ residence in accordance with all applicable laws.
Dated this 27th day of May, 2015.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-