Shaw v. Bank of America et al
Filing
95
ORDER Denying 93 Ex Parte Motion to Stay. Plaintiff's motion to stay is denied. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss on or before October 20, 2017, and Defendant shall file its reply brief on or before October 27, 2017. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for November 3, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 10/4/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(aef)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
NORMAN SHAW,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
Case No. 12-cv-1207 DMS (BLM)
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION TO STAY
v.
BANK OF AMERICA ET AL.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Norman Shaw’s ex parte motion to stay
18
proceedings pending resolution of his petition for writ of mandamus in the Court of
19
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is
20
denied.
21
I.
22
BACKGROUND
23
On July 21, 2017, Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. filed a motion to dismiss
24
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
25
Procedure 12(b)(1).
26
Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) bars this Court from hearing
27
Plaintiff’s claim under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) because Plaintiff failed
28
to exhaust his mandatory administrative remedies.
Defendant contended the Financial Institutions Reform,
–1–
12-cv-1207 DMS (BLM)
1
On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay and to conduct discovery,
2
contending he needed to conduct discovery in order to fully respond to Defendant’s
3
motion to dismiss. Specifically, Plaintiff argued it was necessary to determine (1)
4
“whether Plaintiff’s loan was sold prior to the date the FDIC placed [Washington
5
Mutual Bank, F.A.] in receivership[,]” (2) “whether exhaustion of remedies would
6
have been futile[,]” and (3) “whether exhaustion of FIRREA actually occurred.”
7
(ECF No. 88, Ex Parte Mot. at 7–10.) On August 14, 2017, the Court denied the
8
motion on grounds that the first request for discovery was irrelevant to forming an
9
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff had not made a sufficient showing
10
in support of the second and third requests for discovery. On September 6, 2017,
11
Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit, requesting
12
reversal of this Court’s denial of his motion. Thereafter, the present motion to stay
13
followed.
14
II.
15
DISCUSSION
16
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every
17
court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
18
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,
19
254 (1936). The party seeking a stay bears the burden of justifying the exercise of
20
that discretion. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). In deciding whether
21
to issue a stay pending an appeal, the district court must apply the same four-part
22
standard it applies in reviewing requests for a preliminary injunction. Hilton v.
23
Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). A party seeking a stay “must establish that he
24
is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
25
absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that
26
an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555
27
U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Alternatively, “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a
28
balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a
–2–
12-cv-1207 DMS (BLM)
1
[stay], so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable
2
injury and that [a stay] is in the public interest.” All. for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,
3
632 F.3d 1127, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2011).
4
A.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
5
Whether Plaintiff will succeed on the merits turns on whether the Ninth
6
Circuit will grant his petition for writ of mandamus. Plaintiff contends he is likely
7
to succeed on the merits of his mandamus petition because the Court erred by relying
8
on Defendants’ arguments, which “offered no meaningful support for any contention
9
that discovery should be denied[,]” and the Court’s order “lack[ed] citation to
10
authority to support [its] decision[.]” (ECF No. 93, Ex Parte Mot. at 5.) The remedy
11
of mandamus, however, “is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary
12
situations.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). “[O]nly exceptional
13
circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power ... or a clear abuse of
14
discretion ... will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.” Cheney v.
15
U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citations
16
omitted).
17
The petitioner has the burden to establish “that its right to issuance of the writ
18
is clear and indisputable.” Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384
19
(1953) (internal quotation omitted). The Ninth Circuit applies a five-factor test to
20
determine whether mandamus relief is warranted:
21
25
(1) The party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as a
direct appeal, to attain the relief he or she desires. (2) The petitioner
will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal.... (3)
The district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. (4) The
district court’s order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent
disregard of the federal rules. (5) The district court’s order raises new
and important problems, or issues of law of first impression.
26
DeGeorge v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 219 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2000)
27
(quoting Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977)). “In analyzing the
28
Bauman factors, ... [n]ot every factor need be present at once; indeed, the fourth and
22
23
24
–3–
12-cv-1207 DMS (BLM)
1
fifth will rarely be present at the same time.” Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 428 F.3d
2
1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “However, the
3
absence of the third factor, clear error, is dispositive.” Id. (internal quotation marks
4
and citation omitted).
5
Given that the absence of the third factor, clear error factor, is dispositive, the
6
Court will address it first. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “‘[b]road discretion
7
is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and its decision to deny
8
discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of
9
discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.’”
10
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Goehring v. Brophy,
11
94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th Cir. 1996)). The Court denied the first request for discovery
12
because it was not relevant to forming an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The
13
sole argument in Defendant’s motion to dismiss was that Plaintiff’s TILA claim is
14
barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of FIRREA.
15
contended discovery was necessary to determine whether his loan was sold prior to
16
the date the FDIC placed Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (“WaMu”) in receivership.
17
However, whether the loan was sold prior to or after such date is irrelevant because
18
Plaintiff’s TILA claim against Defendant “relat[e] to any act or omission” of the
19
original bank, WaMu. FIRREA requires exhaustion of “any claim relating to any
20
act or omission of [any depository institution for which the FDIC has been appointed
21
receiver].” 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D)(ii). Plaintiff TILA claim, which stems from
22
alleged disclosure defects in the original loan documents, is “based on the conduct
23
of the failed institution” because the operative loan documents were drafted and
24
executed by WaMu, not Defendant. Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d
25
1056, 1064 (9th Cir. 2014).
Plaintiff initially
26
Moreover, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second and third requests for discovery
27
because Plaintiff had not made a sufficient showing in support of these requests.
28
Plaintiff argued discovery was necessary to determine whether exhaustion of
–4–
12-cv-1207 DMS (BLM)
1
administrative remedies would have been futile and whether exhaustion of FIRREA
2
occurred. Plaintiff, however, “g[a]ve [the Court] no reason to believe that FIRREA
3
exhaustion would have been futile had [he] submitted [his claim] within the
4
appropriate time frame.” Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 1207,
5
1213 (9th Cir. 2012). Nor did Plaintiff provide any argument as to whether his claim
6
is “otherwise not susceptible of resolution through FIRREA’s administrative
7
procedure[.]” Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.
8
2014) (citation omitted). In addition, because a claimant must first complete claim
9
procedure under the FIRREA before seeking judicial review, Plaintiff is in the best
10
position to know whether he exhausted his remedies under FIRREA. See Henderson
11
v. Bank of New England, 986 F.2d 319, 321 (9th Cir. 1993). In light of the foregoing,
12
the Court concludes that it did not commit clear error in denying Plaintiff’s motion.
13
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.
14
B.
Irreparable Injury
15
Next, the Court will consider the irreparable injury to Plaintiff in the absence
16
of the stay. Plaintiff must show more than a mere “possibility” of irreparable harm,
17
but instead he must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of [a
18
stay].” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; see Am. Trucking Ass’ns Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d
19
1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). “Speculative injury cannot be the basis for a finding of
20
irreparable harm.” In re Excel Innovations, Inc., 502 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir.
21
2007). Plaintiff argues he will suffer irreparable injury of “los[ing] his entire case”
22
should Defendant prevail in its motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 93, Ex Parte Mot. at
23
5.) This is insufficient to support a finding that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm
24
in the absence of a stay. Plaintiff does not demonstrate any immediate threatened
25
injury in the absence of the stay. In any event, the Court has expressly stated at the
26
mandate hearing that it may hold an evidentiary hearing upon receiving full briefing
27
by both parties: “What I would suggest is that we set a briefing schedule and a
28
hearing. Have the matter briefed by the parties. Then I can determine, after seeing
–5–
12-cv-1207 DMS (BLM)
1
the briefs, whether or not evidence needs to be taken, or whether the court can engage
2
in fact finding based on the briefing. And perhaps there may be undisputed facts
3
that the court can determine, or it may be necessary to take evidence and have an
4
evidentiary hearing. But I won’t know that until I read the briefs.” (ECF No. 90,
5
Transcript of Mandate Hearing at 6–7.) Because Plaintiff has failed to show
6
likelihood of success on the merits and likely irreparable harm, the Court need not
7
address the balance of equities and public interest factors.
8
III.
9
CONCLUSION
10
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to stay is denied. Plaintiff
11
shall file his opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss on or before October 20,
12
2017, and Defendant shall file its reply brief on or before October 27, 2017. The
13
hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for November 3, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 4, 2017
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–6–
12-cv-1207 DMS (BLM)
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?