Robinson et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
Filing
79
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay 76 IS DENIED.(Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 7/13/12. (GRR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rebecca C. Robinson, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
Civil No. 11‐2284 (MJD/LIB)
Bank of America, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________
William B. Butler, Butler Liberty Law, LLC, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Alan H. Maclin, Mark G. Schroeder and Benjamin E. Gurstelle, Briggs and
Morgan, P.A., Counsel for Lender/Servicer Defendants Bank of America, N.A.,
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
Merscorp, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Federal National Mortgage Association,
U.S. Bank, N.A., and The Bank New York Mellon.
Charles F. Webber and Trista M. Roy, Counsel for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
_______________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceedings in
this case pending the appeal of five similar cases before the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals.
Plaintiffs argue that the Court has the authority to stay proceedings in this
case incidental to its inherent authority to control its docket. Landis v. North
America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254‐55 (1936). Plaintiffs further assert that in
1
determining the propriety of a stay, the Court should weigh the competing
interests of the parties, and the hardship or inequity a party may suffer if a stay is
granted. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). In addition,
according to Plaintiffs, the Court need not consider the likelihood of success on
appeal or whether a bond is necessary in deciding their motion to stay, because
those are factors are relevant only if Plaintiffs were seeking a stay pending the
appeal of this case.
This Court, as has other Judges in this District, finds that a demonstration
of likelihood of success on the merits must be considered in ruling on a motion to
stay proceedings based on the outcome of unrelated cases on appeal. See Kent et
al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Civil No. 11‐2315 (JRT/LIB) (D. Minn. June 26, 2012)
(citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)) (denying similar motion to
stay based on determination that plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of
success on the merits); Xiong et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Civil No. 11‐3377
(JRT/LIB) (D. Minn. June 26, 2012) (same).
Here, the Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and Recommendation to
this Court, recommending that Defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted, as
Plaintiffs have failed to state any claims for relief. In addition, the claims asserted
2
herein are similar to claims asserted in other cases in this District which have
already been found to be without merit. See, e.g., Karnatcheva v, JP Morgan
Chase, N.A., __ F. Supp.2d __, 2012 WL 1657531, at *5‐7 (D. Minn. May 11, 2012).
Defendants argue that in light of the fact that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate
a likelihood of success on the merits, a stay would unjustifiably delay the
ultimate resolution of the Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan defaults. In this case, the total
defaults and overdue amounts attributed to the Plaintiffs are substantial. (See
Declaration of Lisa Sanchez, Exs. A and B.) Therefore, Defendants argue that
justice delayed is justice denied. On the other hand, Plaintiffs do not assert that
denial of the motion to stay will prejudice the Plaintiffs in any way.
In light of the fact that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of
their claims, and the prejudice to Defendants if a stay were granted, the Court
finds it would not serve the interests of justice to grant the motion to stay.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay [Doc. No. 76] IS
DENIED.
Date: July 13, 2012
s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?