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)

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