Schaeffer v. Wachoivia Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS. Motion Hearing set for 8/23/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg.Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/26/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

PAULETTE SCHAEFFER,

No. C 12-2031 RS

Plaintiff,
v.
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
CONTINUING HEARING ON
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.
____________________________________/

15
16

On May 23, 2012, Paulette Schaeffer sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin a non-

17

judicial foreclosure sale scheduled for May 29, 2012, and preliminary injunction that would

18

preclude defendants from proceeding with the foreclosure pending trial in this action. The Court

19

gave defendants the option of either responding to the TRO application, or voluntarily continuing

20

the foreclosure sale for 30 days to permit the matter to be resolved in the context of the application

21

for a preliminary injunction. Defendants elected the latter. The parties subsequently stipulated to

22

extending the briefing schedule on the preliminary injunction application, and defendants agreed the

23

foreclosure sale would not go forward prior to July 13, 2012, a commitment they shall honor,

24

notwithstanding this denial of a preliminary injunction.

25

Schaeffer’s claims in this action arise in part or in whole from her assertion that defendants

26

have failed to comply with the terms of a settlement reached in In Re Wachovia Corporation “Pick-

27

A-Pay” Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 5:09-md-2015 JF. (“In Re

28

Wachovia”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(b), the parties were thereby obligated to file an

1

administrative motion in that action to consider whether this action should be related to it. In the

2

ordinary course of events, where the parties failed to file such a motion, a sua sponte referral for

3

such a determination would issue pursuant to Rule 3-12(c). In this instance, because the Court was

4

aware that the judge presiding over In Re Wachovia has been seconded to Washington, D.C. as the

5

Director of the Federal Judicial Center and the case was closed, no referral was made at the time of

6

the prior order in this action.

7

Upon further review, it has been determined that the judge presiding over In Re Wachovia is

8

continuing to entertain motions relating to enforcement of the settlement in that action. He has,

9

however, declined to relate other cases implicating the settlement to the action pending before him,
instead inviting parties to proceed by appropriate motion. See, e.g. Order entered February 17,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

2012, In Re Wachovia, Dkt. No. 317.

12

Under these circumstances, Schaffer’s application for a preliminary injunction will be

13

denied, without prejudice to her seeking relief in In Re Wachovia, or to her renewing the application

14

in this proceeding if it becomes appropriate to do so in light of any order that may issue in that case.

15

The hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint herein is continued to August 23, 2012

16

at 1:30 p.m. No later than August 9, 2012, Schaffer shall file a supplemental brief, not to exceed 10

17

pages, addressing her rights, if any, to pursue this action as an independent proceeding, and any

18

necessity for doing so. Defendants may file a response, also not to exceed 10 pages, within one

19

week thereafter.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: 6/26/12
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

2