Batayeh v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System et al

Filing 101

OPINION AND ORDER granting 53 Motion to Stay; granting 57 Motion to Stay; granting 68 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WAELL BATAYEH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-12143
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEM, ET AL.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on June 13, 2011, challenging the sale of his property at
a sheriff’s sale pursuant to Michigan’s foreclosure by advertisement statute. The
foreclosure was brought by Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”), which
allegedly was neither “the owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness
secured by the mortgage or the servicing agent of the mortgage.” See Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 600.3204(1)(d) (identifying who may foreclose by advertisement). Relying on the
Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision in Residential Funding Company v. Saurman, –
Mich. App. – , 2011 WL 1516819 (Apr. 21, 2011), Plaintiff charges that the foreclosure
therefore was unlawful. Presently before the Court is a motion to stay the proceedings
pending the Michigan Supreme Court’s review of the appellate court’s decision in
Saurman, filed by Defendants OneWest Bank, FSB, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC,
Residential Funding Company, LLC, MERS, Flagstar Bank, FSB, and Mortgage Banker
Association.

The Supreme Court has held that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to
the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes in its docket with
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.” Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S. Ct. 163, 166 (1936). The exercise of such
authority is within the court’s discretion. Ohio Envtl. Council v. United States Dist. Ct.,
S.D. Ohio, 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977). The party requesting a stay has the burden
to “make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there
is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone
else. Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside
while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.”
Landis, 299 U.S. at 255, 57 S. Ct. at 166. In other words, the party seeking the stay must
demonstrate “that there is pressing need for delay, and that neither the other party nor the
public will suffer harm from entry of the order.” Ohio Envtl. Council, 565 F.2d at 396.
Based on the above considerations, this Court finds a stay of the proceedings in
this matter pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Saurman to be appropriate. This
Court finds it unwise to render a decision– particularly one concerning proper ownership
of a residence– based on a holding that may be obsolete by the time this case is closed or
proceeds to an appeal. Although not the case when Defendants filed the pending motion,
the Michigan Supreme Court has since agreed to accept review of the appellate court’s
decision. Saurman, – N.W. – , 2011 WL 4495070 (Sept. 28, 2011). The Court also has
scheduled oral argument to take place during its November 2011 calendar. Thus any stay
2

presumably will not be lengthy.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED pending the
Michigan Supreme Court’s entry of a final decision in Residential Funding Co. v.
Saurman, Case Nos. 143178 and 143179.
Dated: October 12, 2011
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

3