The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS]
ORDER RE: PRETRIAL MATTERS AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Plaintiffs' complaint appears to relate to what has been called the mortgage crisis in our country. Many similar complaints have been filed in this Court. Based on what has occurred in those cases, the Court is concerned that (1) all parties to the case receive a proper review of their claims in court, and (2) no party is forced to spend unnecessary time and expense on this case. The Court orders the following to achieve these goals and to avoid an early, unfair dismissal with prejudice.
1. Within 10 days of this Order, the Plaintiffs, individually or through counsel, will file a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that there has been compliance with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and specifically stating that the allegations for claims for relief in the Complaint used (by either side) to support federal jurisdiction comply with Rule 11(b).
2. The declaration required by paragraph 1 is not required if a dismissal of this case is filed before the deadline for the declaration.
3. If the declaration required by paragraph 1 is not timely filed, the Court will assume plaintiff does not wish to pursue this case at this time in federal court, and to avoid a dismissal with prejudice, this case will be immediately dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. If this case remains on the Court's calendar, an expedited Scheduling Conference will be ordered under Rules 16(b) and 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties are not required to file any documents before the Scheduling Conference but are required to confer any time before the conference to meet the requirements of Rule 26(f).
5. All parties are alerted to the fact that numerous statutes, programs, and policies are being proposed, enacted, and implemented federally and in California. (See, for example, the "Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008," the "Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008," the "HOPE for Homeowners Act of 2008," the "Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008," the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007," the "Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan," the "Making Home Affordable" program, the "Streamlined Mortgage Modification Program," the "Mod in a Box" program, the "HOPE NOW Alliance" program, the "Homeownership Preservation Policy for Residential Mortgage Assets," the proposed "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009," the proposed "Systemic Foreclosure Prevention and Mortgage Modification Act," proposals for bankruptcy cram-down rules, and California's "Perata Mortgage Relief Bill.") All parties must be aware of the impact these and other statutes, programs, and policies may have on this case, if any.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...