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)

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