Bank of New York Mellon v. City of Richmond, California et al

Filing 29

Ex Parte Application re 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND FOREGO HEARING filed by City of Richmond, California, Gordian Sword LLC, Mortgage Resolution Partners L.L.C., Richmond City Council. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Eric P. Brown in Support of Ex Parte, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to the Declaration of Eric P. Brown, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to the Declaration of Eric P. Brown, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C to the Declaration of Eric P. Brown, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D to the Declaration of Eric P. Brown, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E to the Declaration of Eric P. Brown, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F to the Declaration of Eric P. Brown, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit G to the Declaration of Eric P. Brown, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit H to the Declaration of Eric P. Brown, # 10 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Leyton, Stacey) (Filed on 9/20/2013)

1 STEPHEN P. BERZON (SBN 46540)
SCOTT A. KRONLAND (SBN 171693)
2 STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827)
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]
Attorneys for Defendants City of Richmond, Richmond
7
City Council, Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC and
8 Gordian Sword LLC
WILLIAM A. FALIK (SBN 53499)
9 BRUCE REED GOODMILLER (SBN 121491)
City Attorney
100 Tunnel Rd
10 CARLOS A. PRIVAT (SBN 197534)
Berkeley, CA 94705
Assistant City Attorney
Tel: [phone]
11 CITY OF RICHMOND
Fax: [phone]
450 Civic Center Plaza
E-mail: [e-mail]
12
Richmond, CA 94804
Attorney for Defendants
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC
13 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
and Gordian Sword LLC
14 E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants City of Richmond and
15
Richmond City Council
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (f/k/a The
Bank of New York) and THE BANK OF NEW
19 YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. (f/k/a
The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.), as
20 Trustees; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
21 as Trustee; and WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY
and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
22 ASSOCIATION, as Trustees,
23
24

Case No. CV-13-3664-CRB
EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN
TIME AND FOREGO HEARING ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Honorable Charles R. Breyer

Plaintiffs,
v.

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, a
25 municipality; RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL;
26 MORTGAGE RESOLUTION PARTNERS LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and
27 GORDIAN SWORD LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,
28
Defendants.
EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND FOREGO HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. CV-13-3664-CRB

1

EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND FOREGO

2

HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

3

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, Defendants hereby move this Court for an ex parte order

4 shortening the time for briefing of the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs oppose this motion.
5 Declaration of Eric Brown ¶11.
6

As set forth in greater detail in Defendants’ motion and supporting memorandum, this

7 Court dismissed the related case Wells Fargo v. Richmond, Case No. 13-3663-CRB, on ripeness
8 grounds that present no basis for distinguishing the instant case. Defendants have asked Plaintiffs
9 to dismiss this case voluntarily, but Plaintiffs have refused to do so. Declaration of Eric Brown
10 ¶¶4-11. Plaintiffs have offered no reason why this case would be ripe if Wells Fargo is not. Id.
11 ¶11.
12

Because there is no non-frivolous basis to argue that this case is ripe, particularly given this

13 Court’s ruling in Wells Fargo, there is no need to allow the parties the regular time for briefing or
14 to hold a hearing on the motion. Given the lack of such non-frivolous arguments, the only point of
15 maintaining this lawsuit can be to seek to chill the political process in Richmond and elsewhere,
16 and the Court should act expeditiously to dismiss the case.
17

Defendants therefore propose the following briefing schedule: Plaintiffs’ opposition due

18 Wednesday, September 25, 2013 and Defendants’ reply due Friday, September 27, 2013.
19 Defendants asked Plaintiffs if they would consent to this expedited schedule and Plaintiffs
20 responded that they would not. Id. ¶11. Should the Court deem this proposed schedule untenable,
21 Defendants ask that the Court set the most expedited schedule that it deems appropriate.
22 Defendants further request that the Court rule on the papers without hearing. If this Court
23 determines that a hearing should be held, Defendants ask that the hearing be set as soon as possible
24 after completion of the briefing.
25

The only previous time modification in this case was to allow Defendants to delay

26 responding to the Complaint until after the Court ruled on the pending motion to dismiss in the
27 Wells Fargo case. Dkt. 23.
28

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Defendants’ motion to shorten time.
1
EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND FOREGO HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. CV-13-3664-CRB

1
2 Dated: September 20, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

3

/s/ Stacey M. Leyton
Stacey M. Leyton

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Stephen P. Berzon
Scott A. Kronland
Stacey M. Leyton
Eric P. Brown
Altshuler Berzon LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
City of Richmond and
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC

12

Bruce Reed Goodmiller
Carlos A. Privat
City of Richmond

13

Attorneys for Defendant City of Richmond

14

William A. Falik

11

15
16

Attorney for Defendant
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND FOREGO HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. CV-13-3664-CRB