Liebelt v. Quality Loan Service Corporation et al

Filing 74

ORDER by Judge Koh denying 73 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). (lhklc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2011)

Liebelt v. Quality Loan Service Corporation et al

Doc. 74

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 counsel subsequently contacted Chambers inquiring about a ruling on his proposed order. 25 26 27 for an entry of judgment in favor of Quality Loan Service Corporation and against Aaron Liebelt. 28 1
Case No.: 09-CV-05867-LHK ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION AARON LIEBELT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, ) ) EMC MORTGAGE CRPORATION, ) individually and as JPMORGAN CHASE & ) CO., WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ) ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ) CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF STRUCTURED ) ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II INC. ) ) BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE FUNDING ) TRUST 2007-AR4 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007- ) ) AR4, DOES 1 THROUGH 25, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No.: 09-CV-05867-LHK ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

On March 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a proposed order titled: "Judgment in Favor of Quality Loan Service and Order Permitting Immediate Appeal Per FRCP 54(b)." Dkt. No. 72. Plaintiff's

Chambers told Plaintiff's counsel that Plaintiff needed to file a noticed motion and suggested a hearing date. Plaintiff disregarded Chambers' instruction, and on March 17, 2011, filed ex parte

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dkt. No. 73. The decision of whether to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation is an important issue on which Defendants should have an opportunity to be heard. Full briefing will also assist the Court in determining this issue on its merits. Under Civil Local Rule 7-10, "a party may file an ex parte motion . . . only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion." Furthermore, "[t]he motion must include a citation to the statute, rule or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought." Liebelt's motion does not cite to a statute, rule, or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion in the circumstances at issue here. Therefore, Liebelt's motion is DENIED without prejudice. If Liebelt chooses to refile his motion, he must properly notice and file his motion in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2011

_________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

1

If Plaintiff is concerned about the time it will take for the Court to resolve his motion, Plaintiff should contact Defendants and request that they file statements of non-opposition to his properly noticed motion. These statements of non-opposition can be filed at any time after Plaintiff notices his motion. In the event that Defendants choose to oppose the noticed motion, the Court encourages the parties to agree to an expedited briefing schedule. If the parties do agree to an expedited briefing schedule, the Court will make every effort to resolve Plaintiff's motion as quickly as possible. 2
Case No.: 09-CV-05867-LHK ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT