Maciel et al v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC et al

Filing 32

ORDER Staying Proceedings. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/4/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARTHA MACIEL, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-12-3030 EMC GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, 12 ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS Defendant. ___________________________________/ 13 14 15 The Court is in receipt of Defendant GMAC Mortgage, LLC’s Notice of Bankruptcy and 16 Suggestion of Automatic Stay. It being apparent that, as of May 14, 2012, Defendant GMAC 17 Mortgage, LLC is currently undergoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States 18 Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, with a case number of 12-12020, this 19 Court is bound to stay proceedings pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), which provides for an automatic 20 stay of “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial . . . action or proceeding against the 21 debtor [in bankruptcy] that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the 22 [bankruptcy proceeding] . . . .” 23 In the bankruptcy court’s July 13, 2012 supplemental order, of which this Court takes 24 judicial notice as a public record pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the bankruptcy court 25 carved out certain exceptions to the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). See Final 26 Supplemental Order, In re Residential Capital, LLC, No. 12-12020-mg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 13, 27 2012). One such exception provides that “a borrower . . . shall be entitled to assert and prosecute 28 direct claims . . . relating exclusively to the property that is the subject of the loan owned or serviced 1 by a Debtor for the purposes of defending, unwinding, or otherwise enjoining or precluding any 2 foreclosure . . . or eviction proceeding . . . .” Id. ¶ 14(a). Regarding interpretation of this provision, 3 “[a]ny disputes regarding the extent, application and/or effect of the automatic stay under this Order 4 shall be heard and determined in the Debtors’ jointly administered bankruptcy cases pending in the 5 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 12-12020 in 6 accordance with the Case Management Order entered in the Debtors’ cases [Docket No. 141] and 7 such other and further orders as may be entered by the Court.” Id. ¶ 23. 8 Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint, filed on June 12, 2012, does not allege any facts indicating that it 9 could not have been initiated prior to the commencement of Defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings on May 14, 2012. See Compl., Docket No. 1. Nor does Plaintiffs’ complaint, as currently pled, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 expressly state a claim to defend, unwind, enjoin, or preclude any foreclosure or eviction 12 proceeding. See id. Rather, Plaintiffs dispute title and ownership of their home on a variety of 13 bases, including allegedly invalid securities transactions, failures to properly disclose required 14 information to Plaintiffs, and placing Plaintiffs in a loan they could not afford. See id. Their 15 complaint does mention foreclosure insofar as it argues, in the first cause of action for declaratory 16 relief, that “Defendant did not have the right to foreclose on the Property,” that “Defendant does not 17 have the right to foreclose on the Property,” and that “Defendant’s actions in the processing, 18 handling and attempted foreclosure of this loan has contained numerous violations of State and 19 Federal laws designed to protect borrowers, which has directly caused Plaintiffs to be at an equitable 20 disadvantage to Defendant.” Id. at 12-13. Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendant has foreclosed 21 on the property or that there is any impending or anticipated foreclosure action that they seek to 22 enjoin. It is not clear whether Plaintiffs seek to preclude any foreclosure. 23 If Plaintiffs seek to argue an interpretation of the exception that would permit them to 24 proceed with this action, they must obtain such determination from the United States Bankruptcy 25 Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to the procedures provided in that court’s 26 order establishing the exception. 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 Thus, the Court hereby STAYS all proceedings and VACATES all hearing dates in this 2 action, including the hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss currently scheduled for December 3 11, 2012, pending termination of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) or a determination by 4 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that Plaintiffs may proceed 5 with this action notwithstanding the automatic stay. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: December 4, 2012 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 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 3

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?