Myrette-Crosley v. Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc. et al

Filing 25

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/19/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
No. C 10-03523 CW
8

FAYE MYRETTE-CROSLEY,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
CLARION MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., et
al.,

12
Defendants.
13

/

14
15

On November 12, 2010, the Court stayed this action for ninety

16

days, pursuant to an unopposed motion by the Federal Deposit

17

Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

18

Myrette-Crosley dismissed without prejudice her claims against

19

Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.1

20

2011, Plaintiff and the FDIC filed a stipulation dismissing without

21

prejudice her claims against Defendant IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B,

22

and the FDIC.

23

are Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc.; Mortgage Electronic

24

Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS); MTC Financial, doing business as

25

Trustee Corps; and OneWest Bank, F.S.B.

26

On March 23, 2011, Plaintiff Faye

On March 24,

Following these dismissals, the remaining Defendants

On March 24, 2011, Plaintiff asked the Clerk to enter default

27
1

28

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is also known as
“Freddie Mac.”

1

against OneWest, offering an affidavit showing that it was served

2

on July 8, 2010.

3

March 25, 2011.

4

The Clerk entered default against OneWest on

On March 29, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a notice that she has

5

filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of Title 11 of the United

6

States Code.

7

stayed pending the resolution of her bankruptcy petition.

8

because this is not action or proceeding against Plaintiff, the

9

automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) does not apply to

She asserts that all proceedings against her are

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

this case.

11

However,

to do so, she may file a motion seeking such relief.

12

If Plaintiff seeks to stay her case and has good cause

It does not appear that Clarion, MERS or MTC Financial have

13

been served.

14

Plaintiff shall file proof that she served these Defendants within

15

the period allotted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

16

the alternative, she may move to extend time to serve these

17

Defendants, so long as she can support such a request with good

18

cause.

19

Within three days of the date of this Order,

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order will result in

20

the dismissal of her claims against Clarion, MERS and MTC

21

Financial.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: 4/19/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

In

2