Garcia et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 75

ORDER. 1. The Garcias' Motion to Stay Proceedings/Actions to Enforce Order Pursuant to Rule 62 (Doc. No. 67 ) is DENIED. 2. The Garcias' Motion for Relief from September 11, 2014 and May 21, 2014 Orders of the Court Pursuant to Rule 60 (Doc. No. 68 ) is DENIED. 3. The Garcias' Rule 65 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 71 ) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 11/4/2014. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

John R. Stoebner, as trustee for the
Bankruptcy estate of Albert A. Garcia, Jr.
and Sheila M. Garcia,

Civil No. 13-383 (DWF/LIB)

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

Bank of America, N.A., and
Countrywide Home Loans, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Bank of America
Corporation,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the following motions brought by Albert A.
Garcia, Jr. and Sheila M. Garcia (the “Garcias”): (1) Motion to Stay Proceedings/Actions
to Enforce Order Pursuant to Rule 62 (Doc. No. 67); (2) Motion for Relief from
September 11, 2014 and May 21, 2014 Orders of the Court Pursuant to Rule 60 (Doc.
No. 68); and (3) Rule 65 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 71). The
first two motions were filed on October 28, 2014, and the third motion was filed on
October 30, 2014. The Court requested and received a letter response from Defendants
Bank of America, N.A., and Countrywide Home Loans, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Bank of America Corporation, (“Defendants”) on November 3, 2014.
The Garcias appear to generally seek a reversal of this Court’s September 11, 2014
entry of an Order of Dismissal in the above-captioned case (Doc. No. 66) and the Court’s

corresponding order relating to the substitution of Trustee John R. Stoebner (“Trustee
Stoebner”) in this matter as Plaintiff (Doc. No. 63). (See generally Doc. Nos. 67 & 68.)
The Garcias further appear to seek stays that will allow them time to brief their motions.
(See id.) Finally, with their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, the Garcias seek
to prevent Defendants from selling the property in question in this suit. (See Doc. Nos.
71 & 72.)
The relevant background is accurately stated by Bank of America in its
November 3, 2014 letter. (See Doc. No. 73.) Specifically, the original suit related to the
Garcias’ borrowing of funds from Bank of America to purchase a vacation home. The
Garcias ultimately defaulted, were foreclosed upon, the relevant property was sold, and
the Garcias filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. The Garcias received a discharge and
then filed this suit.
On February 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended dismissal of
the Garcias’ claims for lack of standing due to the bankruptcy proceedings. The Garcias
attempted to join Trustee Stoebner (Doc. No. 61), and Trustee Stoebner and Bank of
America ultimately stipulated to substitution of Trustee Stoebner as Plaintiff (Doc.
Nos. 62 & 63.) The Garcias did not object to the substitution until the present motions,
which were filed more than five months later. Trustee Stoebner and Bank of America
negotiated a settlement and ultimately stipulated to dismissal in this Court. (Doc.
No. 65.) The Order of Dismissal was entered on September 11, 2014. (Doc. No. 66.)
The Court concludes that, as Magistrate Judge Brisbois noted, the Garcias’ claims
belong to the bankruptcy estate. (See Doc. No. 48.) The Court also concludes that
2

Trustee Stoebner was properly substituted as Plaintiff. (See Doc. Nos. 62 & 63.) Based
on these conclusions, the Court determines that the Garcias have no standing to pursue
either the claims in this matter or the motions now before the Court. (See Doc. Nos. 48
& 62.)
Even if the Garcias had standing, they still fail to put forth any basis for their
Rule 60 and Rule 62 motions. The Garcias have not met the requirement of showing
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise . . . [or] newly discovered evidence” or any of the other
grounds for relief under Rule 60. Similarly, the Garcias failed to meet the requirements
of Rule 62, and the Orders to which they refer have long since been entered in this matter
and the period for appeal or any other remedy has passed.
The same is true of their motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Garcias
fail to set forth any basis for relief under Rule 65. The issues have been fully and
properly adjudicated, and the Garcias cannot even begin to meet the required Dataphase
factors. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981). As
a result, all three of the Garcias’ motions must be denied.
Therefore, based upon the Court’s review of the record and all submissions of the
parties, and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby
enters the following:
1.

The Garcias’ Motion to Stay Proceedings/Actions to Enforce Order

Pursuant to Rule 62 (Doc. No. [67]) is DENIED.
2.

The Garcias’ Motion for Relief from September 11, 2014 and

May 21, 2014 Orders of the Court Pursuant to Rule 60 (Doc. No. [68]) is DENIED.
3

3.

The Garcias’ Rule 65 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc.

No. [71]) is DENIED.
Dated: November 4, 2014

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

4