RHODES et al v. MARIX SERVICING, LLC et al

Filing 119

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 109 Motion to Reopen Case. Within 7 days of the date of this Order, the parties shall request a conference with the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J. who will enter a scheduling order in this matter. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 8/25/2017. (km)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RECEIVED
AUG 2 5 2017
AT 8:30
WILLIAM T. WALSH
CLERK

RHODES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

M

Civil Action No. 12-1636 (MAS) (DEA)
v.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
MARIX SERVICING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Melissa Rhodes and Williams Rhodes' s
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion to Reopen the Case.

(ECF No. 109.) Defendants Marix

Servicing, LLC (ECF No. 116), and Zucker Goldberg & Ackerman (collectively, "Defendants")
(ECF No. 117) filed opposition, and Plaintiffs replied (ECF No. 118). The Court has carefully
considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 78.1.
This matter was automatically stayed and administratively terminated on August 24, 2015
because Zucker Goldberg & Ackerman filed for bankruptcy. (ECF No. 106.) Accordingly, the
Court ordered that "[t]he Clerk administratively terminate the action, without prejudice to the right
of any party to reopen the matter for good cause shown, for the entry of any stipulation or order,
or for any other purpose required to obtain a final determination of the litigation." (Id.) On March
15, 2017, Plaintiff obtained an order from the Bankruptcy Court granting relief from the District
Court's automatic stay. (Pl. 's

Ex~

A, ECF No. 109-2.) Plaintiff now seeks to reopen the case

before this Court. (ECF No. 109.) In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs Motion is
untimely and highly prejudicial to Defendants. (ECF Nos. 116, 117.)

'''•·P.

The Third Circuit, however, has stated that "the mere passage of time can[ not] mature an
administrative closing into a dismissal or a final judgment or order," unless the order
administratively terminating the case contains a timetable at which point the case will be
dismissed. Penn W. Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 371 F.3d 118, 128 (3d Cir. 2004). Here, the Court's
order contained no such deadline at which the administrative termination would convert into a
dismissal or final judgment. (ECF No. 106.) Rather, the order ~erely stated that the case was
administratively terminated "pending the result of Defendant's bankruptcy filing." (Id.) The
Court's order, therefore, merely placed the matter "in an 'inactive status until such time as the
[Court], in [its] discretion or at the request of a party, chose either to reactivate it or to dispose of
it with finality."' Penn W. Assocs., Inc., 371 F.3d at 128.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, and for other good cause shown,
IT IS on

thi~st-y of August 2017, ORDERED that:

1.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen the Case (ECF No. 109) is GRANTED.

2.

The Clerk of Court shall REOPEN this case.

3.

Within 7 days of the date of this Order, the parties shall request a conference with
the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J., who will enter a scheduling order in
this matter.