Linda C. Reed v. Wilmington Trust, National Association et al

Filing 19

Additional Questions for Hearing on 11 Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 3, 2016. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LINDA C. REED,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., et al.,

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR
HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINIG ORDER
Re: Docket No. 11

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-01933-JSW

12
13

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

14

OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

15

May 4, 2016, AT 10:00 a.m.:

16

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

17

reargue matters addressed in those briefs. The parties shall not file written responses to this

18

Notice of Questions for hearing. If the parties intend to rely on legal authorities not cited in their

19

briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities

20

reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies of those authorities available at the

21

hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

22

citations to the authorities only, with pin cites but without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

23

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

24

explain their reliance on such authority.

25
26
27
28

The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be
permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained herein.
4.

Plaintiff has not addressed Defendants’ argument that, in light of Saterbak v.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the alleged defects based on the closing date render the assignments

1

voi
idable rather than void. 245 Cal. Ap 4th 808, 815 (2016). In addition to the Sater
r
pp.
n
rbak opinion
n,

2

the Ninth Circu recently held that “an act in viola
e
uit
h
n
ation of a tru agreemen is voidable – not void
ust
nt
e

3

– under New York law[.].” Morgan v. Aurora Loa Services, L
u
Y
”
an
LLC, No. 14
4-55203, 201 WL
16

4

117
79733, at *2 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016 (citing Raj
2
M
6)
jamin v. Deu
utsche Bank Nat. Trust C 757
Co.,

5

F.3 79, 87-90 (2d Cir. 201
3d
14)). In ligh of the rulin in Saterb and Mor
ht
ngs
bak
rgan, what is Plaintiff’s
s

6

bes argument that the Cou could find that one of the alleged defects rend the assig
st
urt
d
f
ders
gnments

7

voi
id?

8

5.

Plaintiff sub
bmits a decla
aration on re
eply, in whic she attests she submitt an
ch
s
ted

app
plication for a loan modi
ification on March 21, 2
M
2016. (Decla
aration of Linda Reed at 2:4:11, Ex.

10

A.) In her repl brief, she argues that Defendants h
)
ly
D
have engage in dual tra
ed
acking. How
wever, those

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

alle
egations are not included in the Com
d
mplaint. On what basis s
should the C
Court conside these
er

12

alle
egations?

13
14

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: May 3, 2016
,

15
16
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2