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.

Aaron Liebelt v. Quality Loan Service Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


March 24, 2011

AARON LIEBELT,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, EMC MORTGAGE CRPORATION,
CHASE & INDIVIDUALLY AND AS JPMORGAN CO., WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II INC. BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST 2007-AR4 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007 AR4, DOES 1 THROUGH 25,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

On March 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a proposed order titled: "Judgment in Favor of Quality Loan Service and Order Permitting Immediate Appeal Per FRCP 54(b)." Dkt. No. 72. Plaintiff's 24 counsel subsequently contacted Chambers inquiring about a ruling on his proposed order.

Chambers told Plaintiff's counsel that Plaintiff needed to file a noticed motion and suggested a 26 hearing date. Plaintiff disregarded Chambers' instruction, and on March 17, 2011, filed ex parte 27 for an entry of judgment in favor of Quality Loan Service Corporation and against Aaron Liebelt. Dkt. No. 73.

The decision of whether to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation is an important issue on which Defendants should have an opportunity to be 3 heard. Full briefing will also assist the Court in determining this issue on its merits.

Under Civil Local Rule 7-10, "a party may file an ex parte motion . . . only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion."

Furthermore, "[t]he motion must include a citation to the statute, rule or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought." Liebelt's motion does not cite to a statute, rule, or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion in the circumstances at issue here.

Therefore, Liebelt's motion is DENIED without prejudice. If Liebelt chooses to refile his motion, 10 he must properly notice and file his motion in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.*fn1

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

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.