Vandervennett Jr. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee of the IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-AR27, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-AR27 et al
Filing
13
ORDER denying 12 Motion to Stay. Response to 8 Motion to Dismiss due 5/16/2013. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EDWARD VANDERVENNETT, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 13-10698
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST CO., et al.,
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
HON. R. STEVEN WHALEN
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY (DKT. 12)
This matter comes before the Court on Edward Vandervennett, Jr.’s
(“Plaintiff”) motion to stay all dispositive motion practice pending resolution of
Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. 12). Since oral argument will not significantly
aid the decisional process, this matter will be decided on the briefs. See E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
This is a case challenging a mortgage foreclosure. Plaintiff originally filed
this action in the Livingston County Circuit Court; Defendants removed the case on
February 19, 2013 and, shortly thereafter, filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 3). In
what is beginning to look like a pattern,1 Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ motion
See, e.g., Kwalton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., et al., E.D. Mich. Case No. 13-11148 wherein
Plaintiff’s counsel employed identical procedural maneuvers.
1
to dismiss by filing an Amended Complaint2 (Dkt. 4) and a motion to remand (Dkt.
5). Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt.
8). Plaintiff has now filed a motion to stay (Dkt. 12), asking the Court to hold off on
deciding Defendants’ motion to dismiss, until after ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to
remand.
The Court is concerned not to undertake or approve any procedural courses
that may delay the ultimate determination of this case. The Court is not inclined to
delay adjudication of this matter any longer than necessary. Furthermore, the
Court is not persuaded that maintaining two separate briefing schedules and
potentially holding two separate hearings serves judicial economy. In the interest
of efficiency, the Court intends to schedule all pending motions for hearing on a
single day, and Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings will be DENIED. Plaintiff is
directed to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8) within the time-frame
allowed by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(1)(B).
Plaintiff is cautioned to proceed judiciously in responding to Defendants’
motion to dismiss. In particular, Plaintiff should carefully review the claims
contained in the Amended Complaint and, if any of the claims lack legal merit,
Plaintiff should stipulate to dismiss those claims. To this end, Plaintiff’s counsel is
directed to carefully review Conlin v. MERS, --- F.3d ---, Case No. 12–2021, 2013
Plaintiff has a right to file an Amended Complaint in response to a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).
2
2
WL 1442263 (6th Cir. Apr. 10, 2013) and Welk v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 850
F.Supp.2d 976 (D. Minn. 2012). In the event that Plaintiff should persist in
advancing claims that clearly lack merit, then the Court will consider whether the
pleadings are being presented for an improper purpose, such as to cause
unnecessary delay or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, in violation of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(b), which, if proven, could require the imposition of sanctions. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(c).
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings
is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is further directed to respond to Defendants’ motion to
dismiss (Dkt. 8) within the time-frame allowed by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(1)(B), in
other words – by Thursday, May 16, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 15, 2013
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on May 15,
2013, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party.
By: s/A. Chubb
Case Manager
3
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?