Wells Fargo Bank, National Association et al v. City of Richmond, California et al

Filing 38

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by City of Richmond, California, Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC. Motion Hearing set for 10/11/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Responses due by 9/6/2013. Replies due by 9/13/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kronland, Scott) (Filed on 8/23/2013)

1 STEPHEN P. BERZON (SBN 46540)
SCOTT A. KRONLAND (SBN 171693)
2 JONATHAN WEISSGLASS (SBN 185008)
ERIC P. BROWN (SBN 284245)
3
Altshuler Berzon LLP
4 177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
5 Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
6 E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
7
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
8
9 Attorneys for Defendants City of Richmond and
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

BRUCE REED GOODMILLER (SBN 121491)
City Attorney
CARLOS A. PRIVAT (SBN 197534)
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF RICHMOND
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

WILLIAM A. FALIK (SBN 53499)
100 Tunnel Rd
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC

17
18

Attorneys for Defendant City of Richmond

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

22

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
23 ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

24
25

v.

Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

26

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, a
27 municipality, and MORTGAGE
RESOLUTION PARTNERS LLC,
28
Defendants.

Honorable Charles R. Breyer

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB

1

The Court has pending before it Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject

2 Matter Jurisdiction. The Court has considered the briefing and argument in support of and against
3 the Motion. Plaintiffs have been unable to show the Court that this case is ripe or that they have
4 standing to pursue their claims given that there is no claim that the City of Richmond has enacted a
5 resolution of necessity, which is a prerequisite to the eminent domain proceedings Plaintiffs seek to
6 prevent. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and the case is
7 DISMISSED.
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Dated:

________________________________
Honorable Charles R. Breyer
United States District Court Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB