Fordjour v. Washington Mutual Bank et al

Filing 66

ORDER DENYING 51 , 52 , 55 , AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION TO ARBITRATION HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 5, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, ) ) ) Defendant. _______________________________ ) CHARLES M. FORDJOUR, No. C 07-1446 MMC (PR) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION TO ARBITRATION HEARING (Docket Nos. 51, 52 & 55)

On March 13, 2007, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Yuba County Jail in Marysville, California, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil action against defendant Washington Mutual Bank ("WMB"), alleging breach of contract as well as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604 & 3605), and the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1981). The Court subsequently granted WMB's motion to compel arbitration of the action under the Federal Arbitration Act. Following conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, WMB moved to confirm the arbitrator's award denying all of plaintiff's claims for relief. Thereafter, plaintiff sought an extension of time to file a motion to vacate the arbitration award, on the ground the award should not have been issued due to plaintiff's inability to attend the arbitration hearing because the Court had not yet ruled on his request to be transported to the hearing. By order filed November 23, 2009, the Court granted plaintiff's

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

request for an extension of time and set a briefing schedule for the parties with respect to both WMB's petition to confirm the arbitration award and plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award. In view of the above, plaintiff's motions for a court order directing that he be transported to the arbitration hearing are hereby DENIED as moot. The Court will address by separate order the merits of WMB's petition to confirm the arbitration award and plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award. This order terminates Docket Nos. 51, 52 and 55. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 5, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2