Kaplan et al v. Amtrust Bank et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 32 The Defendant, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations Motion to Stay up to and including August 22, 2012. The Defendant may file a renewed Motion to Stay with the Court at the end of this Stay unless the District Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss. Should the District Court deny the Motion to Dismiss, the Parties shall file a new Case Management and Scheduling Report with suggested dates and deadlines within fourteen (14) days of the District Court's Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 5/22/2012. (LMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

ALEXANDER L. KAPLAN and
DENISE A. KAPLAN,
Plaintiffs,
V.

Case No: 2:11-CV-574-FtM-UASPC

AMTRUST BANK, LENTZ
APPRAISAL GROUP, INC.,
GARRETT A. LAW and SUSAN K.
LAW
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation’s (FDIC) Motion to Stay (Doc. #32) filed on May 2, 2012. The Plaintiff objected to
the Motion but never filed a response in opposition and the time to do so has now expired.
The Plaintiff has asserted claims against the Defendant Amtrust Bank and the FDIC as
receiver for conduct committed by Amtrust during the closing on some property purchased by
the Plaintiff. On December 4, 2009, the FDIC was appointed as the Receiver for Amtrust Bank
by the Office of Thrift Supervision. A receiver was appointed because Amtrust no longer had
the funds to cover its outstanding loans.
As grounds for the stay, the Defendant states that the Plaintiff is an unsecured debtor
against the remaining assets of Amtrust Bank. On April 30, 3011, the Board of Directors of the
1

FDIC made a formal determination that insufficient assets exist in the receivership to make a
distribution on general unsecured claims. The FDIC argues, in its Motion to Dismiss, that the
Plaintiff’s claim is an unsecured claim therefore, worthless. Thus, the Defendant argues that the
case filed by the Plaintiff should be dismissed on prudential mootness grounds because the
Plaintiff can never recover on his claim.
Without making a determination on the merits of the Defendant’s prudential mootness
claim, a preliminary peek at the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss shows that it has merit. As such,
the Court finds good cause to grant the stay for ninety (90) days while the District Court
considers the merits of the Motion to Dismiss.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
The Defendant, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations Motion to Stay (Doc. #32) is
GRANTED up to and including August 22, 2012.
(1) The Defendant may file a renewed Motion to Stay with the Court at the end of this
Stay unless the District Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss.
(2) Should the District Court deny the Motion to Dismiss, the Parties shall file a new
Case Management and Scheduling Report with suggested dates and deadlines within
fourteen (14) days of the District Court’s Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 22nd Day of May, 2012.

Copies: All Parties of Record
2