Rahoi et al v. JPMorgan Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 30

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 29 Ex Parte Application.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION JON S. RAHOI, YANLING L. RAHOI, each ) individually and on behalf of all others similarly ) situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., ) PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY SERVICES, ) INC., a New Jersey Corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No.: 12-CV-03756 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.’S EX PARTE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (“JP Morgan”) has filed an administrative motion 19 seeking an order shortening time to hear JP Morgan’s Motion for a Temporary Stay. ECF No. 29. 20 JP Morgan’s Motion for a Temporary Stay seeks to stay this action pending resolution a Writ 21 Petition that JP Morgan has filed with the California Court of Appeal in Banks et al. v. JP Morgan 22 Chase Bank, N.A. (Alameda County Superior Court, No. 12614875 (Carvill, J.)). ECF No. 29 at 1- 23 2. JP Morgan contends that the Writ Petition raises the same issue raised in JP Morgan’s pending 24 Motion to Dismiss in this matter. Id. at 2. Specifically, the Writ Petition raises the issue of 25 whether California Code of Civil Procedure Section 580b may be applied to short sale transactions. 26 Id. JP Morgan contends that any decision of the California Court of Appeal in the Bank’s matter 27 would provide binding precedent for this Court. Id. (citing Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field, 311 28 1 Case No.: 12-CV-03756 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.’S EX PARTE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME 1 U.S. 169, 177-79 (1940)). JP Morgan seeks to expedite the hearing on JP Morgan’s Motion for a 2 Temporary Stay because JP Morgan’s Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled to be heard on 3 January 31, 2013. Id. 4 Assuming the California Court of Appeal issues a published decision in the Banks matter, 5 that precedent might be binding on this Court with respect to the issue of whether California Code 6 of Civil Procedure Section 580b may be applied to short sale transactions. Nevertheless, the Court 7 is not willing to stay this action indefinitely while the California Court of Appeal resolves the 8 Banks matter. Accordingly, JP Morgan’s administrative motion to expedite the hearing on JP 9 Morgan’s Motion for a Temporary Stay is hereby DENIED. If JP Morgan still wishes to file its United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Motion for a Temporary Stay, JP Morgan must obtain a hearing date from Courtroom Deputy 11 Martha Parker Brown. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: January 23, 2013 14 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 12-CV-03756 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.’S EX PARTE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME

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?