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.

Stone v. Indymac FSB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 14, 2010

JOHN AND DIANNE STONE, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
INDYMAC FSB, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Indymac Federal Bank FSB ("FDIC" or "Defendant") filed an Objection (ECF No. 61) to the Declaration of Sharon Lapin regarding future filings against the FDIC (ECF No. 60).

Ms. Lapin's Declaration was filed in response to this Court's Order requiring her to file a notice under penalty of perjury to declare that "there will be no further filings of any cases against the FDIC as receiver or IndyMac." (Hr. Tr, ECF No. 62, at 12.)

As Defendant highlights in their objection, Ms. Lapin's declaration merely states that she agrees to refrain from filing any actions against the FDIC "as Receiver for IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB." (ECF No. 60, at 1.) She makes no mention of refraining from filing actions against IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB ("IndyMac") itself. Therefore, Defendant's Objection is SUSTAINED. Ms. Lapin is ordered to file an Amended Declaration, clarifying that she will refrain from filing actions against the FDIC as Receiver for IndyMac, and IndyMac. Ms. Lapin is ordered to file the Amended Declaration within ten (10) days this Order is electronically filed.

Defendant also objects that Ms. Lapin's declaration states that she will only refrain from filing actions against the above parties in the Eastern District of California. Defendant contends that Ms. Lapin was ordered to refrain from filing actions in state and federal court against the FDIC and IndyMac. The Court declines to extend its order to any court other than the Eastern District of California, therefore, Defendant's Objection is OVERRULED.

In light of above and the resolution of any outstanding issues at the September 30, 2010 hearing, this case is DISMISSED nunc pro tunc. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101014

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.