Caranchini v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 50 motion to stay. A copy of this Order has been mailed to Plaintiff on 12/18/18. Signed on 12/18/18 by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Law clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
GWENDOLYN GILL CARANCHINI,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-00775-DGK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY
This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff Gwendolyn G. Caranchini’s latest attempt to avoid
foreclosure on her home. Plaintiff has sued Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) and Martin
Leigh PC (“Martin Leigh”), contesting enforcement of a promissory note and deed of trust. Now
before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the Case (Doc. 50). The Court DENIES the motion
because Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of establishing the need for it.
Plaintiff has filed three previous lawsuits contesting enforcement of the same promissory
note and the same deed of trust at issue in this case. See Caranchini v. Bank of America, N.A.,
4:10-CV-00672-DGK (removed to this Court on July 6, 2010; granting summary judgment to
defendants on September 26, 2013; affirmed by the Eighth Circuit on September 12, 2014);
Caranchini v. Kozeny & McCubbin, LLC, 4:11-CV-0464-DGK (removed to this Court on May 4,
2011; granting defendants summary judgment on September 26, 2013); Caranchini v. Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC and Kozeny & McCubbin, 4:14-CV-00480 (removed on May 30, 2014; dismissed
on September 23, 2014). In short, Defendants prevailed in these cases because Plaintiff’s claims
were without merit.
In August 2017, Plaintiff filed her fourth lawsuit on this subject in the Circuit Court of

1

Jackson County, Missouri, against Nationstar and Martin Leigh. She asserted claims for negligent
misrepresentation and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”).
Defendant Nationstar timely removed to this Court (Doc. 1), alleging Plaintiff fraudulently joined
Martin Leigh—a Missouri resident—to avoid diversity jurisdiction. This Court agreed and
dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Martin Leigh on August 16, 2018 (Doc. 24).
On October 22, 2018, Nationstar filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 31).
Plaintiff’s response to the summary judgment motion was initially due by November 13, 2018, but
the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension until November 30, 2018 (Doc. 37).
On November 16, 2018, Martin Leigh filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff and her
counsel (Doc. 40). Plaintiff’s counsel then moved to withdraw due to a conflict of interest arising
out of the motion for sanctions (Doc. 38). On November 20, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
counsel’s motion and allowed Plaintiff—a former member of the Missouri Bar—to proceed pro se
(Doc. 42). The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file her response to the motion for sanctions by
November 30, 2018.
On November 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for a two-week extension to respond to the
motion for summary judgment and the motion for sanctions (Doc. 44). The Court granted Plaintiff
a two-week extension to respond to the motions because she had recently become a pro se litigant
(Doc. 47). The Court cautioned Plaintiff that it would grant no further extensions in this case (Doc.
47). In what appears to be an attempt to circumvent this Court’s ruling, Plaintiff now requests this
Court stay the case for two to three weeks.
A district court possesses “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power
to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707 (1997). The proponent of a stay
bears the burden of establishing the need for it. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). In

2

determining whether to grant a stay, a court considers a variety of factors, including the movant’s
likelihood of success on the merits, whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay,
whether a stay will substantially injure the other parties, and where the public interest lies. Id. at
434.
In support of her motion to stay, Plaintiff claims that her current medications have resulted
in complications, including confusion. Plaintiff also alleges a stay is appropriate because she has
upcoming doctors’ appointments and feels “sluggish,” and therefore will not have time to respond
to the motions pending in this case and in a case in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s arguments are unsupported by the facts. Although she
claims serious medical problems, she has provided no medical records, affidavits, or other
corroborating evidence. Additionally, she has had ample time to respond to the pending motions.
She is, in fact, no longer litigating a case in the District of Kansas because the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas entered judgment against Plaintiff on December 10, 2018.

See

Caranchini v. Peck, 18-cv-2249-TJJ (D. Kan. Dec. 10, 2018) (Doc. 130). If anything, Plaintiff’s
recent filings in the District of Kansas evidence an ability to timely respond to the motions pending
in this Court. Between that case and this one, Plaintiff has already filed twenty-nine pages of
briefing this month (Docs. 49, 50). See also Peck, 18-CV-2249-TJJ (Docs. 125, 126, 127). Thus,
she appears capable of responding to the pending motions.
More importantly, the four Nken factors weigh against granting a stay here. First, given
that Plaintiff’s three prior lawsuits on this same issue were unsuccessful, Plaintiff is very unlikely
to succeed on the merits in this case. Second, Plaintiff will not be irreparably injured absent a stay.
Plaintiff is capable of responding to the motions; whether she does so is her choice. Third, issuing

3

a stay will substantially injure Defendants. Plaintiff has arguably harassed them through this
litigation to prevent them from exercising any right to foreclose they might have, and Defendants
have a right to have their motions ruled on in a timely fashion. Finally, the public interest weighs
in favor of allowing Missouri’s non-judicial foreclosure process to play itself out, because
lenders—who play a crucial, if sometimes unpopular, role in our society—will not issue mortgages
if they cannot foreclose on the loan collateral when a borrower fails to repay.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the Case (Doc. 50) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 18, 2018

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4