Frank J. Arlasky et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 21

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Cormac J. Carney: ORDER DISMISSING CASE with Prejudice and Denying Pending Motion as Moot. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mba)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 17-00539-CJC(DFMx)

Date: June 13, 2017

Title: FRANK J. ARLASKY V. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL.

PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa Kunig
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE AND DENYING PENDING MOTION AS MOOT
Plaintiff Frank J. Arlasky filed this case on March 1, 2017, in Orange County
Superior Court, against Defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Barret, Daffin, Frappier,
Treder & Weiss, LLP, and Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, alleging fourteen causes of
action relating to a notice of trustee’s sale of his home that was mailed to him on
February 15, 2017. (Dkt. 1 Ex. 1.) Plaintiff took out a $993,675 mortgage loan in 2006,
and he stopped making payments on the loan in 2011. (Dkt. 11 at 1.) Defendant
Nationstar removed the action to this Court on March 24, 2017. (Dkt. 1.)
On August 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a previous lawsuit against Defendants
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, and Veriprise Processing Solutions, LLC. (See SACV 1501514 CJC(DFMx) Dkt. 1 Ex. 1.) Defendants in that case removed to this Court on
September 18, 2015. (Id. Dkt. 1.) As with this case, Plaintiff filed that lawsuit in
response to a notice of trustee’s sale. (See id. Dkt. 14 at 2.)
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s prior case with prejudice following his repeated
failure to appear at hearings and upon extensive showing of dilatory tactics verging on
bad faith to run out the clock on a foreclosure sale based on the notice of trustee’s sale.
(See id. Dkt. 20 Exs. B, C (repeated failure to timely respond to emails and failure to
appear at depositions); id. Dkt. 20 Ex. D (late filing); id. Dkt. 20 Ex. F (indicating
purpose of litigation was to delay until foreclosure time barred); id. Dkt. 19 Ex. I (failure

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 17-00539-CJC(DFMx)

Date: June 13, 2017
Page 2

to produce documents in advance of deposition); id. Dkt. 29-1 ¶ 9 (Plaintiff informing
mediator of intention to not comply with Court-ordered sanction); id. Dkt. 21 (order
denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend for failure to attach proposed amended
complaint).)
Based on the similarities of Plaintiff’s allegations in this case to his allegations in
the previous case, (compare id. Dkt. 1 Exs. 1, 4; id. Dkt. 14 with Case No. 17-00539 Dkt.
1 Ex. 1), and Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an opposition to Defendant Barret, Daffin’s
motion to dismiss, (Case No. 17-00539 Dkt. 17), the Court issued an Order to Show
Cause within Seven Days why this action was not filed to cause unnecessary delay and to
reprise the dilatory tactics employed in the first action to preclude foreclosure, (Dkt. 18
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1))).
Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, this
case is DISMISSED WITH PREUDICE. The pending motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 11), is
DENIED AS MOOT.

nhm
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk MKU