Hampton v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al

Filing 29

ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (#1, Ex. 1) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs Motion to Stay 17 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 4/11/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

AUDREY HAMPTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; BAC )
HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a subsidiary )
of BANK OF AMERICA; FEDERAL LOAN )
MORTGAGE COMPANY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01775-RLH-PAL
ORDER
(Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order–#1, Ex. 1; Motion to Stay–#17)

14
Before the Court is Plaintiff Audrey Hampton’s Motion for Temporary
15

Restraining Order (#1, Pet. for Removal Ex. 1, filed Oct. 20, 2010).1 The Court has also

16
considered Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP’s
17
(collectively, “BofA”) Opposition (#20, filed Dec. 21, 2010). Plaintiff did not reply.
18
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (#17, filed Dec. 13, 2010). The
19
Court has also considered BofA’s Opposition (#18, filed Dec. 17, 2010), and Plaintiff’s Reply
20
(#22, filed Dec. 22, 2010).
21
BACKGROUND
22
This dispute arises out of a mortgage loan Plaintiff obtained from Countrywide
23
Home Loans (which was later acquired by Bank of America) in 1996 to purchase the property at
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

Although the Petition for Removal was filed with this Court on October 20, 2010, the M otion for
Temporary Restraining Order was initially filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada on
September 14, 2010.

1

1

4516 Strato Jet Way, North Las Vegas, NV 89031. In January 2009, Plaintiff defaulted on her

2

loan. In March, Plaintiff sought to have Countrywide modify her loan. Countrywide eventually

3

denied her modification application and foreclosed upon her home. The Federal Loan Mortgage

4

Company (“Freddie Mac”) purchased the home.

5

On September 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court of

6

the State of Nevada (“State Court”). Defendants subsequently removed the case to this Court on

7

October 13, 2010. Since removal, Plaintiff began negotiating with Freddie Mac to settle the case,

8

BofA brought a motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff brought a motion to stay. Currently before the

9

Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay and motion for TRO. For the reasons discussed below, the

10

Court denies both motions.

11
12

DISCUSSION
I.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

13

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (#1, Compl. Ex. 1) eluded the

14

Court until now as neither party informed the Court of the motion in a timely manner. The Court

15

did not learn of the motion until Defendants belatedly responded to the motion three months after

16

Plaintiff filed it in the State Court and two months from the time the case was removed to this

17

Court. Neither party decided to mention the TRO motion in their Joint Status Report (#12, filed

18

Nov. 12, 2010), even though the parties did state that there was a pending Motion to Dismiss (#5).

19

The Court cannot contemplate a legitimate reason why the parties would have neglected this TRO

20

motion. What is even more perplexing is BofA’s severely untimely response and lack of

21

explanation as to its delay in responding or its failure to mention the motion in the Joint Status

22

Report. Nonetheless, the Court denies the motion as moot since the foreclosure sale Plaintiff

23

sought to be restrained already occurred and Plaintiff’s house was sold.

24

II.

25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

Motion to Stay
“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
2

1

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. Am. Water Works & Elec. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

2

The grant of a stay is “an exercise of judicial discretion and the ‘party requesting a stay bears the

3

burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.’” Ind. State Police

4

Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC, — U.S. —, 129 S. Ct. 2275, 2276 (2009) (quoting Nken v. Holder,

5

— U.S. —, 129 S.Ct 1749, 1761 (2009)). The moving party “must make out a clear case of

6

hardship or inequity” if there is even a small possibility that a stay would harm another party.

7

Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.

8

Plaintiff in this case sought and the Court granted multiple extensions of time to

9

respond to BofA’s Motion to Dismiss (#5) so that she could negotiate with the Freddie Mac.

10

Plaintiff’s response was originally due November 6, 2010. Plaintiff received extensions until

11

December 13, 2010—more than a month of extra time. This is as much time as the Court is

12

willing to grant as any more would inhibit the Court from timely administration of its docket.

13

There is no reason for the Court to delay these proceedings further. Therefore, the Court orders

14

Plaintiff to respond to BofA’s motion within two weeks of the date of this order or the Court will

15

grant the motion as unopposed.

16

CONCLUSION

17

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining

19

Order (#1, Ex. 1) is DENIED as moot.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (#17) is DENIED.

21

Dated: April 11, 2011.

22
23

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
Chief United States District Judge

24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

3