Stone, et al v. Indymac FSB, et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/14/10 ORDERING that dfts' 61 Objections are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART; Attorney Ms. Lapin is to file an Amended 60 Declaration w/i 10 days clarifying that she will refrain from filing actions against the FDIC as Receiver for IndyMac, and IndyMac. In light of above and the resolution of any outstanding issues at the 09/30/10 hearing, this case is DISMISSED nunc pro tunc. Clerk to close the case. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

Stone, et al v. Indymac FSB, et al

Doc. 63

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 Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Indymac Federal Bank FSB ("FDIC" or "Defendant") filed an Objection (ECF No. 61) to the Declaration of Sharon Lapin regarding future filings against the FDIC (ECF No. 60). Ms. Lapin's Declaration was filed in response to this Court's Order requiring her to file a notice under penalty of perjury to declare that "there will be no further filings of any cases against the FDIC as receiver or IndyMac." at 12.) /// /// 1 (Hr. Tr, ECF No. 62, v. INDYMAC FSB, et al., Defendants. ----oo0oo---JOHN and DIANNE STONE, Plaintiffs, ORDER No. 2:09-cv-02394-MCE-EFB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

As Defendant highlights in their objection, Ms. Lapin's declaration merely states that she agrees to refrain from filing any actions against the FDIC "as Receiver for IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB." (ECF No. 60, at 1.) She makes no mention of

refraining from filing actions against IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB ("IndyMac") itself. SUSTAINED. Therefore, Defendant's Objection is

Ms. Lapin is ordered to file an Amended Declaration,

clarifying that she will refrain from filing actions against the FDIC as Receiver for IndyMac, and IndyMac. Ms. Lapin is ordered

to file the Amended Declaration within ten (10) days this Order is electronically filed. Defendant also objects that Ms. Lapin's declaration states that she will only refrain from filing actions against the above parties in the Eastern District of California. Defendant

contends that Ms. Lapin was ordered to refrain from filing actions in state and federal court against the FDIC and IndyMac. The Court declines to extend its order to any court other than the Eastern District of California, therefore, Defendant's Objection is OVERRULED. In light of above and the resolution of any outstanding issues at the September 30, 2010 hearing, this case is DISMISSED nunc pro tunc. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 14, 2010

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2