Hopkins v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/13/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 10 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 11 DONALD RAY HOPKINS, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 No. C 13-04447 RS ORDER VACATING HEARING AND REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., a Delaware Corporation registered to do business in the State of California; CITIBANK, AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT, a form of business unknown, and DOES 2 to 1,000 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 19 20 21 Plaintiff Donald Ray Hopkins filed this action in Alameda County Superior Court in June 2011. Two years later, after Hopkins lodged a fourth amended complaint, defendants removed to 22 23 federal court. Defendants Citibank and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (AHMSI) then 24 brought two motions to dismiss and a motion to strike, all of which have gone unopposed. After the 25 opposition deadlines passed for all three motions, Hopkins gave notice that a bankruptcy stay 26 applies to any actions against nonmoving defendant American Brokers Conduit (ABC). (Dkt. No. 27 29). It appears Hopkins, who asserts that ABC is an indispensible party, may believe the filing of 28 that notice suffices to preclude this court from reaching the merits of moving defendants’ pending NO. C 08-05278 RS 1 motions to dismiss and strike his fourth amended complaint. AHMSI objects, arguing that the state 2 court rejected a similar contention by plaintiff prior to removal, and that the court’s ruling remains 3 in effect and applicable here. (Dkt. No. 30). In July 2013, while the case was still in state court, 4 Hopkins notified the court that he had been served with a notice of automatic stay by ABC, which 5 filed for bankruptcy protection in 2007. Hopkins filed an ex parte application to continue several 6 7 8 10 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 11 pending motions so that he could file a regularly-noticed motion to stay, arguing that AHMSI had refused to stipulate to a stay. The court denied Hopkins’ request. (Dkt. No. 30, Exh. 2). It is unclear that the state court’s denial of Hopkins’ ex parte application to continue a hearing date is dispositive. Accordingly, within fifteen days of this order, the parties shall submit briefs, not to exceed ten pages each, addressing the effect of the bankruptcy stay on the court’s 12 13 14 jurisdiction to address dispositive motions brought by other defendants. The hearing set for November 21, 2013 is vacated pending further order of court. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: 11/13/13 19 20 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NO. C 13-04447 RS 2

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?