United States Of America v. Jones et al

Filing 45

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT YUS MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIENS OR OTHER CLAIMS OF INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 15, 2010. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2010)

United States Of America v. Jones et al

Doc. 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BENJAMIN JONES, MICHELLE YU, OFFICE OF TAX COLLECTOR SAN MATEO COUNTY, NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE COMPANY, UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FRANCHISE TAX BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Defendants. / ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT YU'S MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIENS OR OTHER CLAIMS OF INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY No. C 10-00796 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant Michelle Yu filed a motion to expunge any liens or claims of interest, in the real property that this the subject of this action, held by defendants the Employment Development Department of the State of California, the Franchise Tax Board of the State of California, and Unifund CCR Partners. The government was order to show cause why it did not file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to Ms. Yu's motion. The government has now responded that it did not do so because "Defendant Yu created the equivalent of a crosscomplaint against three of her co-defendants . . . [and i]t would be improper for the government to . . . take a position." The Employment Development Department of the State of California and the Franchise Tax Board of the State of California appear to disclaim any interest in the property. Counsel for

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

the Franchise Tax Board has filed a notice disclaiming "any right, title, or interest in or to the property . . . by virtue of any recorded liens" (Dkt. No. 10). Plaintiff has also filed a notice purportedly on behalf of the Employment Development Department of the State of California in which it disclaims "any and all rights, title, or interest in or to the subject matter of the complaint" (Dkt. No. 20). Now Unifund CCR Partners has filed an answer and an opposition to Ms. Yu's motion, in which it claims "a lien against the subject property in the sum of $19,302.28 plus accrued interest at the legal rate of ten percent per annum from September 18, 2006, to date" (Dkt. No. 42). Ms. Yu must file a reply in support of her motion by NOVEMBER 24, 2010, AT NOON. Ms. Yu shall please confirm that she intends her motion to be a crossclaim against certain of her co-defendants. She shall please provide legal authority for her argument that the Court should expunge any liens or claims of interest in the subject property by the three defendants, when one of them now claims a specific interest in the property, as identified above. Ms. Yu is of course welcome in the alternative to withdraw her current motion and more explicitly file a crossclaim against Unifund CCR Partners for a priority in interest in the subject property.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2