Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 24

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO ANSWER. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on July 12, 2013. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

NANCY CALDWELL, an individual,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., successor in
)
interest to Wachova Mortgage, FSB Successor in )
Interest to World Savings Bank; REGIONAL
)
TRUSTEE SERVICES CORPORATION, a
)
Washington corporation; all persons or entities )
unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, )
title, lien or interest in the property described in )
this complaint adverse to Plaintiff's title thereto; )
DOES 1 THROUGH 25, inclusive
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 13-CV-01344-LHK

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEFENDANT’S TIME TO ANSWER

On March 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint and an Ex Parte Application for a
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO Application”) seeking to enjoin a foreclosure sale on
Plaintiff’s property scheduled for two days later on March 28, 2013. ECF Nos. 1, 3-5. Plaintiff
voluntarily withdrew her TRO Application on March 28, 2013. ECF No. 12. However, during the
time the TRO Application was pending, the Court was informed that Plaintiff was litigating a

28
1
Case No.: 13-CV-01344-LHK
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO ANSWER

1

nearly identical case in the Central District of California relating to the same property (a TRO had

2

already been denied in that case), and that, accordingly, this Court might not have jurisdiction. The

3

Court therefore requested that the parties submit two pages of briefing each regarding the Court’s

4

jurisdiction so that the Court could be educated if it became necessary to resolve this issue. ECF

5

No. 13. The parties submitted their briefs on April 10, 2013. ECF Nos. 16 and 17.

6

On April 24, 2013, the parties stipulated, without Court approval, to extend the time for
Wells Fargo to file a response to the complaint until 21 days after the Court’s ruling on jurisdiction

8

and venue. ECF No. 19. There is no, and has never been, a motion pending regarding jurisdiction

9

or venue. The Court will not issue a ruling on jurisdiction or venue until such a motion is filed, if

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

any. Thus, to the extent the parties have ceased to litigate this case on the grounds that the Court

11

has not ruled on jurisdiction, this decision was in error.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: July 12, 2013
April 3,

________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 13-CV-01344-LHK
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO ANSWER