Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fleenor v. Countrywide Home Loans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 5, 2010

RYAN FLEENOR, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This dispute arises from a mortgage loan transaction in which Plaintiff Ryan Fleenor ("Plaintiff") refinanced his home in November 2006. Presently before the Court are concurrent motions by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Service, Inc. ("Defendants"), to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).*fn1

Plaintiff initiated suit in Superior Court, County of Sacramento on June 2, 2009, and on August 25, 2009 the matter was removed to District Court. Subsequently, on September 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California.

The filing of a petition in bankruptcy commences the case and creates a bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). The bankruptcy estate consists of all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case. Id. After a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing, all causes of action become property of the bankruptcy estate. See id.; see also Smith v. Arthur Anderson LLP, 421 F.3d 989, 1002 (9th Cir. 2005)

On June 15, 2010, this Court issued an Order (Docket No. 49) directing parties to submit supplemental briefing as to why this matter should not be before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California as an asset to be adjudicated in Bankruptcy Petition #09-41092. The deadline for briefing was June 25, 2010. Plaintiff failed to file briefing or otherwise respond as required.

Paramount to the efficient and effective application of bankruptcy laws is the ability of bankruptcy courts to marshal all assets as a single estate. In this matter, it would not be appropriate for the District Court to intervene. This Court cannot impose a rule which would allow the hodge podge treatment of assets. The administration of the bankruptcy estate must be done uniformly.

Accordingly, on the Court's own motion Plaintiff's suit is DISMISSED without prejudice as an asset to be adjudicated in Bankruptcy Petition #09-41092. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dockets Nos. 25 and 27) are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.