Sanchez v. Homecomings Financial Network et al

Filing 35

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr, on 8/3/2010. IT IS ORDERED that Ps' 3 motion to remand is DENIED without prejudice. FURTH ORD that Ds' 5 motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. FURTH ORD that Ds' 6 motion to expunge lis pendens is DENIED without prejudice. FURTH ORD that Ds' 13 motion to stay re petition for removal is DENIED as moot. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)

Sanchez v. Homecomings Financial Network et al

Doc. 35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA RENO, NEVADA DUANE J. SANCHEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC. a ) Delaware Corporation; GMAC MORTGAGE; ) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE; MORTGAGE ) ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., ) a subsidiary of MERSCORP, INC., a ) Delaware corporation, [MERS]; JPMORGAN ) CHASE BANK, NA; STEWART TITLE OF NEVADA,) a Nevada Corporation; EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE ) SERVICES, LLC; HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE; ) LANE BIGLERI, individually; and DOES ) 1-25 CORPORATIONS, DOES and ROES 1-25 ) Individuals, Partnerships, or anyone ) claiming any interest to the property ) described in the action, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________) PRESENT: Deputy Clerk: EDWARD C. REED, JR. COLLEEN LARSEN Reporter: 3:10-CV-184-ECR-VPC MINUTES OF THE COURT DATE: August 3, 2010

U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE NONE APPEARING

Counsel for Plaintiff(s) Counsel for Defendant(s) MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS

NONE APPEARING NONE APPEARING

We now reconsider the following motions which were reopened by our Order (#34) filed August 2, 2010: Plaintiffs' motion to remand (#3), Defendants' motion to dismiss" (#5), Defendants' motion "To Expunge Lis Pendens" (#6) and Defendant's motion to "Stay re 1 Petition for Removal," (#13). The motions will be denied on the bases and for the reasons enunciated below. On May 12, 2010, the claims in this case related to the formation and/or operation of MERS were transferred (#25) to the MDL Court in the District of Arizona and assigned to the Honorable James A. Teilborg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The claims in this case unrelated to the formation and/or operation of the MERS system were separated and simultaneously remanded. Thus, because certain claims in

Dockets.Justia.com

this case are under the jurisdiction of the MDL court in the District of Arizona it would be improper to remand this action to state court. Plaintiffs' motion (#3) to remand will therefore be denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs may raise the issue of remand again when the entirety of this action is under our jurisdiction. Moreover, it appears that Judge Teilborg has not yet issued an order clarifying which claims in this case remain within our jurisdiction, and which lie within the jurisdiction of the MDL court. Therefore, at this time, the pending motions to dismiss (#5) and expunge lis pendens (#6) will be denied without prejudice. Defendants may re-file or file new motions after Judge Teilborg issues the order clarifying which claims in this case remain within our jurisdiction, and which lie within the jurisdiction of the MDL court. Finally, Defendant's motion to "Stay re 1 Petition for Removal" (#13) requests that we stay proceedings pending a decision from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on whether this case will be transferred to the MDL court. The judicial panel has transferred (#25) this case to the MDL court. Therefore, the motion (#13) is moot and will be denied on that basis. IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiffs' motion to remand (#3) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED Defendants' motion to dismiss" (#5) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion "To Expunge Lis Pendens" (#6) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion to "Stay re 1 Petition for Removal," (#13) is DENIED as moot.

LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK By /s/ Deputy Clerk

2