Caampued et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS 5 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE, DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND EXPUNGING LIS PENDENS. **Terminated Motions: 12 , 15 , 24 **Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/10/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

HERNANDO CAAMPUED; and CECILIA
CAAMPUED,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as trustee for
Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-8; MERIDIAN FORECLOSURE
SERVICE; and MORTGAGE ELECTRONICS
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., also
known as MERS,

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE,
DISMISSING CASE
FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND
EXPUNGING LIS
PENDENS

Defendants.

12
13

No. C 12-1223 CW

________________________________/
Plaintiffs Cecilia and Hernando Caampued move to consolidate

14
the instant case with another previously pending in federal court.
15
Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Mortgage
16
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) oppose Plaintiffs’
17
motion and move to dismiss this case and to expunge the lis
18
pendens.

Defendant Meridian Foreclosure Service separately moves

19
to dismiss this action.

Plaintiffs have not opposed any of

20
Defendants’ motions.

The Court takes the parties’ motions under

21
submission on the papers, and having considered their papers, the
22
Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate, DISMISSES the case
23
for failure to prosecute and ORDERS the lis pendens expunged.
24
Plaintiffs, who are represented by counsel, initiated the
25
instant case on March 12, 2012, seeking to void Defendants’ power
26
of sale and asserting various claims against Defendants.
27
28

1

The following day, on March 13, 2012, Plaintiffs removed from

2

state court a separate action pending against them, Deutsche Bank

3

Nat. Trust Co. v. Caampued, and it was assigned Case No. 12-1244

4

CRB.

5

Bank National Trust Company, which is also one of the Defendants

6

in this case.

7

That case, for unlawful detainer, was brought by Deutsche

On March 17, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate

8

the two cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.

9

Docket No. 5.

Subsequently, on March 27, 2012, a judge of this

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

court found that there was no basis for federal jurisdiction in

11

the unlawful detainer action and granted Deutsche Bank’s motion to

12

remand it to state court.

13

Caampued, 2012 WL 1036894 (N.D. Cal.).

14

Procedure 42 allows the Court to consolidate “actions before the

15

court” if they “involve a common question of law or fact.”

16

Generally, Rule 42 only applies to cases that are properly before

17

the same court.

18

(9th Cir. 1972).

19

this Court with which this case can be consolidated, Plaintiffs’

20

motion to consolidate is DENIED.

21

Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v.
Federal Rule of Civil

Or. Egg Producers v. Andrew, 458 F.2d 382, 383
Because there is no case properly pending before

On April 12, 2012, Defendants Deutsche Bank and MERS filed

22

motions to dismiss the case in its entirety and to expunge the lis

23

pendens.

24

Docket Nos. 12 and 15.

On April 13, 2012, this case was re-assigned to the

25

undersigned.

26

the three pending motions were vacated and counsel was directed to

27

re-notice the hearings.

In the order reassigning the case, the hearings on

On April 17, 2012, a clerk’s notice was

28
2

1

also issued, noting that the previous briefing schedules for the

2

motions remained in effect.

3

On April 18, 2012, Defendant Meridian Foreclosure Service

4

filed a new motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint in its

5

entirety or for a more definite statement.

6

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiffs’ opposition to this motion

7

was due by May 2, 2012.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Docket No. 24.

Subsequently, on April 20, 2012, Defendants Deutsche Bank and
MERS re-filed their pending motions as new motions.
On April 23, 2012, the Court terminated Defendants Deutsche

11

Bank and MERS’s duplicative motions.

12

reiterated that the previous briefing schedules remained in effect

13

for those motions, and specifically noted that Plaintiffs’

14

oppositions to those motions were due by April 26, 2012.

15

At that time, the Court

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have failed to

16

oppose any of Defendants’ motions, although they were provided

17

several reminders of the deadlines by which they were required to

18

do so.

19

prosecute and EXPUNGES the lis pendens.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the case for failure to

20

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 5, 12, 15 and 24.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: 5/10/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3