Christal v. Indymac Bank et al
Filing
34
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 06/01/10 ORDERING that dft OneWest Bank/Indymac's 33 Application to Substitute OneWest Bank, FSB as IndyMac Bank, FSB is GRANTED. (Benson, A.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 McCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP
1770 FOURTH AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE (619) 685-4800 FACSIMILE (619) 685-4811
McCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP Matthew Podmenik, Esq. (SBN: 219364) David C. Scott, Esq. (SBN: 225893) Rachel S. Opatik, Esq. (SBN: 243140) 1770 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 685-4800 Facsimile: (619) 685-4811 Attorneys for Defendant, OneWest Bank, FSB as successor in interest to certain assets and liabilities of Indymac Bank, FSB IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BENNIE L. CHRISTAL, an individual, vs. Case No. 2:08-cv-02989-JAM-KJM
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE ONEWEST BANK , FSB AS INDYMAC INDYMAC BANK FSB, a Delaware Corp.; BANK, FSB QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, a California Corp.; and Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez JOHN & JANE DOES 1-10; Defendants. The Application of Defendant ONEWEST BANK, FSB ("ONEWEST") AS
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO CERTAIN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF INDYMAC BANK, FSB ("INDYMAC") for an order to Substitute ONEWEST as INDYMAC, came regularly before this Court. Having read and considered the foregoing application for order substituting party and supporting documents and good cause appearing therefor: IT IS ORDERED THAT ONEWEST be substituted as a party to this action in the place of of INDYMAC.
Dated: _June 1, 2010
/s/ John A. Mendez______________ Hon. John A. Mendez Judge of the U.S. District Court, For the Eastern District of California
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?