Mitchell v. Routh Crabtree Olsen, P.S. et al

Filing 73

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 71 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition to Ex Parte Application (Dkt. #63) AND 63 Ex Parte Application for Relief from Order of July 9, 2012 and Notice of Dismissal without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 12, 2013. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BERNARD MITCHELL, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C 11-3577 JSW Plaintiff, ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATIONS v. ROUTH CRABTREE AND OLSEN, PS, et al., (Docket Nos. 63, 71) Defendants. / 14 15 On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff, Bernard S. Mitchell (“Mr. Mitchell”), filed an ex parte 16 application for relief from the order and judgment issued on July 9, 2012. (Docket No. 63.) On 17 January 25, 2013, Defendants OneWest Bank, FSB (“OneWest”) and Deutsche Bank National 18 Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) filed an ex parte application for leave to file a supplemental 19 opposition to Plaintiff’s ex parte application. The Court has considered the parties’ papers, 20 relevant legal authority, the record in this case, and, where necessary and appropriate, the record 21 in related cases, finds the applications suitable for disposition without oral argument, and 22 VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 8, 2013. 23 In his ex parte application, which is, in essence, a motion for relief from Judgment, 24 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). However, Mr. Mitchell does not ask that the 25 Court re-open this case. Rather, he asks that the Court deem his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 26 to be legally ineffective as to OneWest, Deutsche Bank and Regional and asks that the Court 27 find that it “shall not operate as an adjudication on the merits pursuant to” Rule 41(a) or 41(b) 28 in Bernard S. Mitchell, et al. v. Regional Trust Services Corporation, et al., 12-CV-5547-JSW 1 (“Mitchell IV”). (Docket No. 63 at 4:4-8.) In their application, OneWest and Deutsche Bank 2 ask that they be permitted to file a substantive opposition to Mr. Mitchell’s arguments about 3 why he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). 4 5 6 7 In light of the Court’s Order, issued this date, in Mitchell IV, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the parties’ applications. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 12, 2013 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?