Beale Monterey Enterprises, Inc. v. United States District Court

Filing 7

ORDER to Plaintiff to File Affidavits; ORDER STAYING CASE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/25/2015. Sworn declarations due by 3/27/2015. CASE STAYED. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

BEALE MONTEREY ENTERPRISES, INC., ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-00264 LJO JLT
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO FILE AFFIDAVITS
)
v.
) ORDER STAYING CASE
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
)
)
Defendant.
)

16
17

In this case, Plaintiff alleges the United States District Court was erroneously listed as a

18

beneficiary on a Deed of Trust. (Doc. 1 at 1, 6) Plaintiff explains that the Deed of Trust, issued in

19

2008, was intended to secure a $750,000 promissory note to Kamalpreet Sidhu and Amarit Kaur. Id.

20

at 2. Plaintiff alleges that when the Notary Public was preparing the document, she used a software

21

program, normally used to draft property bonds for bail purposes, which automatically added the

22

United States District Court as a beneficiary. Id. Recently, in the course of selling the real property,

23

the escrow company discovered the beneficial interest of the Court. Id.

24

The complaint alleges that counsel has contacted the Clerk of the Court and the United States

25

Attorney in this District but neither office would assist. (Doc. 1 at 3) Notably, the Clerk of the Court

26

of the Eastern District of California has conducted an investigation and found no one in that office

27

who received the contact described in the complaint. Moreover, the “Full Reconveyance” attached to

28

the complaint is prepared for the signature of “Richard W. Wieking, Clerk, United States District
1

1

Court for the Northern District of California.” (Doc. 1 at 13) Of course, Mr. Wieking is, the Clerk of

2

the Court for the Northern District and has absolutely no connection to the Clerk of the Court of this

3

District. Thus, it appears that counsel may have inadvertently contacted the Northern District, rather

4

than the Eastern District, when seeking the reconveyance. In any event, the complaint is not verified

5

and there is no evidence to support that the Court is not properly a beneficiary of the Deed of Trust.

6

ORDER

7

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

8

1.

9
10
11

Within 30 days, Plaintiff SHALL file a sworn declaration from Notary Public,

Yesenia Castillo, explaining how the United States District Court came to be named as a beneficiary
of the Deed of Trust at issue;
2.

Within 30 days, Kamalpreet Sidhu and Amarit Kaur SHALL file sworn declarations

12

explaining how the United States District Court came to be named as a beneficiary of the Deed of

13

Trust at issue and, if correct, denying that the property was ever posted by them in connection with a

14

property bond to secure the release from custody of any criminal defendant;

15

3.

The case is STAYED until further order of the Court.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 25, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2