Dixon et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al
Filing
17
ORDER on Questions for Oral Argument. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 3/8/2016. (lhklc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
OSRIC DIXON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
Case No. 16-CV-00031-LHK
ORDER REGARDING QUESTIONS
FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
v.
15
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
A hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is scheduled for March 10, 2016,
19
at 1:30 p.m. The parties should be prepared to address the following questions at oral argument:
20
Questions for Both Parties
21
The parties’ Joint Case Management Statement states that the parties believe that
evaluating Plaintiffs for a loan modification is the form of ADR most likely to lead
to a resolution of this matter. Please be prepared to discuss the date when that
evaluation will be complete.
Both parties brief res judicata by applying the 9th Circuit’s federal “transactional
nucleus of facts” test. Because the prior decision at issue was a California state
court decision, why isn’t the California “primary rights” test the correct standard to
apply? See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 16-CV-00031-LHK
ORDER REGARDING QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
1
2
Questions for Defendants
If the “primary rights” test applies, does the prior state court judgment bar
Plaintiffs’ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim to the extent that the claim is
based on Defendants seeking payment under an allegedly void note or deed of
trust?
Was Plaintiffs’ loan in default in 2010? If so, did Nationstar obtain its alleged
rights after the loan was in default? Similarly, did Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas obtain its alleged rights after the loan was in default? Can this be
determined from the First Amended Complaint and attachments?
3
4
5
6
7
Questions for Plaintiffs
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
The parties’ Joint Case Management Statement states that Defendant Quality Loan
Service Corporation filed a declaration of nonmonetary status under Cal. Civ.
Code. § 2924l without objection. It further states that Quality may therefore be
disregarded as a nominal party that need not participate further in the lawsuit.
Given the parties’ joint representation to the Court concerning Quality, do Plaintiffs
agree that Plaintiffs’ claims against the remaining three Defendants are the only
remaining claims in the case?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16
17
Dated: March 8, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 16-CV-00031-LHK
ORDER REGARDING QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
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?