Brinker v. JP Morgan Chase N.A. et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SERVE DEFENDANTS. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on May 15, 2013. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13

ALAN BRINKER,
Plaintiff(s),

14
15
16

v.
JP MORGAN CHASE, N.A., et al.,

17

Defendant(s).

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 13-CV-01805-LHK

ORDER TO SERVE DEFENDANTS

On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this action. ECF No. 1. The case was
assigned to Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal. The summons was issued on May 7, 2013. ECF No. 6.
On May 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause and
Temporary Restraining Order (“Ex Parte Application”). ECF No. 7. Plaintiff seeks to prohibit
Defendant JP Morgan Chase, N.A. (“JP Morgan”) from engaging in a foreclosure sale of Plaintiff’s
property located in Sunnyvale, CA on Monday, May 20, 2013. See id. at 3. Plaintiff has not as of
yet served any of the Defendants in this action with the Complaint, the Summons, or the Ex Parte
Application.

27
28
1
Case No.: 13-CV-01805-LHK
ORDER TO SERVE DEFENDANTS

1

Plaintiff’s attorney, Anita Steburg, has filed a declaration in which she states that, on May

2

10, 2013, representatives of Defendants JP Morgan, California Reconveyance Company, and LPS

3

Agency Sales and Posting, Inc. directed Ms. Steburg to fax the Ex Parte Application to each

4

Defendant. ECF No. 8 (“Steburg Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-7. Ms. Steburg’s Declaration merely states that

5

three days later, on May 13, 2013, she faxed a letter to JP Morgan requesting that it state whether it

6

intends to oppose the Ex Parte Application. Id. ¶ 8. It is not clear whether Ms. Steburg has faxed

7

the actual Ex Parte Application to Defendants.

8

Plaintiff provides no reason for not serving the Complaint, Summons, and Ex Parte

9

Application on Defendants. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s fax of a letter to JP Morgan requesting

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

that JP Morgan state whether it intends to oppose the Ex Parte Application or fax of the Ex Parte

11

Application itself is insufficient notice to the Defendants. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12

65(b)(1) (providing that counsel must “certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice and the

13

reasons why it should not be required.”).

14

The case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on May 15, 2013.

15

Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve Defendants with the Summons, Complaint, Ex Parte

16

Application, and a copy of this Order by no later than 10:30 a.m. May 16, 2013. Defendants have

17

until 2:30 p.m. to file their response to the Ex Parte Application.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: May 15, 2013

________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 13-CV-01805-LHK
ORDER TO SERVE DEFENDANTS