Walker v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/28/2017 ORDERING the parties to file contemporaneous pleadings, no later then 1/11/2018, discussing the following: Whether the bankruptcy action is final, and if so, when did it become so; If the bankruptcy action is final, and the allegation herein is that defendant's POC filed in that bankruptcy action was deceitful, untimely, or otherwise in error, why was that issue not adjudicated in the bankruptcy action; if the asserted FD CPA violation was not adjudicated in the bankruptcy action, why the final adjudication of the bankruptcy action is not res judicata of the issue sought to be litigated here. Whether the assumed final sale of the property at issue has been made by a successor-to-defendant loan servicing company in accordance with a bankruptcy adjudication which moots the alleged errors set forth in paragraph 2. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKIE WALKER,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 16-cv-01794 TLN GGH

Plaintiff,
v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC,

ORDER

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

The court is in the process of adjudicating the Motion to Dismiss, ECF 14, but has
encountered potential jurisdictional problems not discussed by the parties.
Plaintiff filed a claim in bankruptcy on February 24, 2015; the Proof of Claim (POC),

20

which plaintiff alleges is a FDCPA violation, was filed in bankruptcy court on July 31, 2015. In

21

the motion to dismiss, defendant attached an Exhibit 5, a notice of trustee sale of the property at

22

issue in this case—sale date October 6, 2016 (filed seemingly by yet another successor loan

23

servicing company). While it might be inferred that the bankruptcy action has been finally

24

adjudicated because of the filing of the notice of sale, as far as the undersigned can discern, the

25

pleadings in this action filed in federal court are silent about the finality of the bankruptcy action.

26

Because the court should not address the merits of claims when subject matter jurisdiction

27

is lacking, i.e., whether the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute,

28

or it is otherwise moot, and because the undersigned desires to short circuit later arguments on the
1

1

merits of plaintiff’s allegations which might otherwise dispose of this case before more judicial

2

resources are expended, the parties shall file contemporaneous pleadings, no later than January

3

11, 2018, discussing the following:

4

1. Whether the bankruptcy action is final, and if so, when did it become so;

5

2. If the bankruptcy action is final, and the allegation herein is that defendant’s POC filed in

6

that bankruptcy action was deceitful, untimely, or otherwise in error, why was that issue

7

not adjudicated in the bankruptcy action; if the asserted FDCPA violation was not

8

adjudicated in the bankruptcy action, why the final adjudication of the bankruptcy action

9

is not res judicata of the issue sought to be litigated here.

10

3. Whether the assumed final sale of the property at issue has been made by a successor-to-

11

defendant loan servicing company in accordance with a bankruptcy adjudication which

12

moots the alleged errors set forth in paragraph 2.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: December 28, 2017

15
16

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2