Botelho v. Mortgageit, Inc et al

Filing 24

ORDER re 21 granting STIPULATION to add FDIC as additional defendant as receiver of IndyMac Bank.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/26/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009)

Download PDF
1 DAVID R. ZARO (BAR NO. 124334) dzaro@allenmatkins.com 2 JOSHUA R. MANDELL (BAR NO. 225269) jmandell@allenmatkins.com 3 ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS LLP 4 515 South Figueroa Street, Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3309 5 Phone: (213) 622-5555 Fax: (213) 620-8816 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 10 11 HENRY BOTELHO, an individual, 12 13 vs. Plaintiff, Case No. 4:08-cv-04316 STIPULATION TO ALLOW FDIC TO BE ADDED AS ADDITIONAL PARTY IN ITS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER OF INDYMAC BANK FSB; [Proposed] ORDER THEREON NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 MORTGAGEIT, INC., a New York corporation; FEDERAL DEPOSIT 15 INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Conservator of INDYMAC FEDERAL 16 BANK, F.S.B.; and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 WHEREAS On July 11, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS") 20 closed IndyMac Bank, FSB and appointed the FDIC as its receiver pursuant to 12 21 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(2)(A) and § 1821(c)(5). As receiver, the FDIC was appointed for 22 the purpose of liquidating the liabilities of the failed institution. This includes the 23 administration of claims filed by creditors of the failed institution. On the same 24 date, the OTS chartered a new institution, IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, to which it 25 transferred all of the insured deposits and substantially all of the assets of the failed 26 institution. The OTS then appointed the FDIC as conservator to operate new 27 institution and assumes all rights, titles, powers, privileges, and operations of the 28 failed institution. Since that date, the FDIC has been operating in the dual capacity LAW OFFICES Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP 817042.01/LA Case No. 4:08-cv-04316 STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER 1 as receiver of IndyMac Bank, FSB and as conservator of IndyMac Federal Bank, 2 FSB (collectively, the "Bank"); 3 WHEREAS this Court entered an order on the stipulation of the parties on 4 October 1, 2008, that substituted the FDIC into this action in the single capacity of 5 Conservator of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB; 6 8 WHEREAS the Complaint in the above-captioned action seeks relief that WHEREAS in order to protect the interests of the receivership, the FDIC now 7 implicates the FDIC's dual role as receiver and as conservator of the Bank; 9 seeks leave to be added as a party into the above-captioned action in its additional 10 capacity as receiver of IndyMac Bank, FSB; 11 WHEREAS, the parties hereto, stipulate between themselves that the FDIC be 12 granted leave to be added as a party into this action in its additional capacity as 13 receiver of IndyMac Bank, FSB. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES Dated: January 15, 2009 ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS LLP DAVID R. ZARO JOSHUA R. MANDELL By: /s/ Joshua R. Mandell JOSHUA R. MANDELL Attorneys for Defendant FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Dated: January 15, 2009 JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL LLP TOM JENKINS DAN MULLIGAN By: /s/ Dan Mulligan DAN MULLIGAN Attorneys for Plaintiff HENRY BOTELHO Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP 817042.01/LA Case No. 4:08-cv-04316 STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER -2- 1 IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The FDIC is granted leave to be added into this action as an additional 3 party in the following capacity and form: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as 4 Receiver of IndyMac Bank, FSB. 1/26/09 5 Dated: _________________________ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES ____________________________ Hon. Claudia Wilken United States District Court Judge Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP 817042.01/LA Case No. 4:08-cv-04316 STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER -3-

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?