Sullivan v. Washington Mutual Bank FA et al

Filing 129

ORDER RESETTING Order to Show Cause Hearing from 10/9/14 to Tuesday 11/4/2014 02:30 PM. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/6/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

J. Brian McCauley (SBN 66762)
A Professional Law Corporation
[e-mail]
425 California Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KATY SULLIVAN

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10
11

NORTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KATY SULLIVAN, also known as KATY
MARIE SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14
15
16

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA,
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, National
Association, BANK OF AMERICA,
National Association, CALIFORNIA
RECONVEYANCE COMPANY; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Defendants.

Case No. CIV 09 2161 EMC
JOINT RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND EXTENSION REQUEST
Date: October 9, 2014
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Dept: 5 - 17th Floor
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
Action Filed:

4/22/09

17
18

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

19

Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”), California Reconveyance

20

Company (“CRC”) and Bank of America, National Association, as successor by merger to

21

LaSalle Bank NA as trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR9

22

Trust (“B of A”) (together, “Defendants”), along with plaintiff Katy Sullivan (“Plaintiff”)

23

(collectively the “Parties”), hereby submit this Joint Response to Order to Show Cause and

24

Extension Request.

25

1.

26

Jurisdiction and Service
Plaintiff has named the following as defendants: WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA,

27

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, National Association, BANK OF AMERICA, National

28

Association, LASALLE BANK, National Association, CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE
UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
3962935.1 -- AL109.W383

1

COMPANY; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive.

2

This court has jurisdiction, because Plaintiff, in the initial complaint, alleges violations of

3

the Federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). (See Second Amended Complaint.)

4

2.

5

Status of the Case and Settlement Since Previous Joint Statement:
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages under TILA, as well as general damages. Plaintiff also

6

seeks rescission under TILA. According to Plaintiff, Defendants failed to make certain

7

disclosures required under the TILA at the time the subject loan was issued to Plaintiff, and

8

thereafter. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants falsely represented the nature of the subject

9

loan. Defendants deny these allegations and contend that they did not participate in the

10
11
12
13
14
15

origination process which is the subject of Plaintiff’s legal action.
Plaintiffs owns a 2 unit condominium. Plaintiff and Defendants have arrived at a
conditional settlement which contemplates the following:
1)

Plaintiff will deed one of the condo units to Defendant, which will then be sold

and the proceeds paid to Defendant,
2)

Plaintiff will retain the other unit, and Defendant has agreed to modify the existing

16

loan such that the security for that loan will consist solely of a line on the unit retained by

17

Plaintiff.

18

At the last hearing, the parties have relayed that they had agreed on principal terms of

19

required Amendments to the Condominium CC&Rs, substitutions of trustees on the first deed and

20

trust and HELOC held by Defendants, a form Deed of Partial Reconveyance and a Settlement

21

Agreement, and that there might be some final revisions to those documents. The parties had also

22

investigated what will be required to insure title on the two units in light of this transaction, and

23

have obtained and exchanged documents that will be required by title companies. What was

24

expected to be the parties’ final documentation was exchanged, and a last revision was seen to be

25

necessary, pertaining to the manner of a retention of jurisdiction and performance by all, so that a

26

dismissal can be entered which retained appropriate jurisdiction and power in the Court to move

27

the settlement forward if ambiguity or unforeseen difficulty might crop up for either side.

28

Revised documentation is being exchanged virtually contemporaneously with this
2
UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
3962935.1 -- AL109.W383

1

Extension Request; considering advice from the Court’s staff, it is believed by the parties hereto

2

that an extension of the Order to Show Cause hearing of twenty-one (21) days is prudent and

3

requested, so as to keep the urgency to complete this documentation in place but to avoid

4

unnecessary imposition on the Court’s calendar.

5

Accordingly, it is jointly requested that this Court set over its current Order to Show

6

Cause appearance for three weeks, for the reasons stated hereinabove. In the event that such

7

extension is not acceptable for whatever reason, the parties respectfully submit this Joint

8

Response for the upcoming October 9 Order to Show Cause.

9

Respectfully submitted,

10
11

ALVARADOSMITH
A Professional Corporation

DATED: October 2, 2014

12
13

By: /s/ Theodore E. Bacon
THEODORE E. BACON

14

Attorneys for Defendants

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE
COMPANY and BANK OF AMERICA,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as successor
by merger to LaSalle Bank NA as trustee for
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2006-AR9 Trust

15
16
17
18
19

DATED: October 2, 2014

20

By: /s/ J. Brian McCauley
J. BRIAN MCCAULEY, ESQ..
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
KATY SULLIVAN

21
22

RT

Judge Ed

H

ER

. Chen

ward M

FO

NO

26

R NIA

ED
ORDER
IT IS SO DIFIED
AS MO

LI

UNIT
ED

25

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

24

IT IS SO ORDERED that the OSC is reset for Tuesday 11/4/14
at 2:30 p.m.
___________________________
Edward M. Chen
U.S. District Judge
A

23

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

27
28
3
UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
3962935.1 -- AL109.W383