Smith et al v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association et al
Filing
61
ORDER denying as moot 47 Motion to Remand; denying as moot 50 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 7/7/2017. (ca)
In
?l^nitetii ^totesi Btsstntt Court
tor tl^e ^ontl^em Btotrtct ot ^eorstn
PmnotDult IBiOtOton
MARVIN B. SMITH, III & SHARON
H. SMITH,
Plaintiffs,
No. 2:15-CV-70
V.
HSBC BANK USA, N.A.; WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A.; S. ANDREW
SHUPING, JR.; SHUPING, MORSE &
ROSS LLP; RUBIN LUBLIN, LOG;
BRET CHANESS; and PETER
LUBLIN;
Defendants.
ORDER
On March 22, 2017, Plaintiffs moved the Court to remand
this case under the abstention doctrine set out in Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
based
on
the
fact
that
a
Dkt. No. 47.
state
proceeding
Their motion was
that
Plaintiffs
alleged to be parallel was pending before the Georgia Supreme
Court.
Id. at 7 (referencing case
Court denied
Plaintiffs' petition for
June 30, 2017.
Petitions,
2017-denied/
A0 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
number S17C1005).
That
writ of certiorari on
See Sup. Ct. of Ga., 2017 Denied Certiorari
http://www.gasupreme.us/granted-denied-petitions/
(last
accessed
July
6,
2017).
Therefore,
Plaintiffs'
Motion
to
Remand
under
the
Younger
Abstention
Doctrine, dkt. no. 47, is DENIED as moot.
On April 3, 2017, Plaintiffs moved the Court to stay its
ruling
on
resolved
Defendants'
their
Younger
motion
remand
to
dismiss
motion.
Dkt.
until
No.
after
50.
it
That
motion is likewise DENIED as moot.
At the
same time.
Plaintiffs
moved the
Court to
allow
them another opportunity to amend their complaint in the event
the Court would otherwise dismiss their case.
3-5.
Dkt. No. 51 at
The Court will take that request under consideration
when it decides the motions to dismiss.
The Clerk of Court is
therefore DIRECTED to terminate the motion.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of July, 2017.
HONT LISA GODBE«Y WOOD, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?