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.

David A. Watts and Barbara I. Watts, Husband and Wife v. Washington Mutual Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


August 3, 2011

DAVID A. WATTS AND BARBARA I. WATTS, HUSBAND AND WIFE,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA; FDIC; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA;
CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY; U.S. BANK, NA; LA SALLE BANK, NA, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATE OF HOLDER OF ZUNI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-OA1 MORTGAGE LOAN PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-0A1; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT

On June 14, 2011, Defendant FDIC, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, filed a Motion to Strike Punitive Damages, Statutory Damages, Injunctive Relief, Equitable Relief, and 24 Attorney's Fees from Plaintiffs' Complaint and a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. Dkt. 25 Nos. 6 and 9 ("FDIC's motions"). Also on June 14, Defendants California Reconveyance 26 Company, JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, and US Bank National Association filed a 27 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. Dkt. No. 8 ("Remaining Defendants' motion"). For the 28 reasons discussed below, these three motions are DENIED as MOOT.

On July 12, 2011, the Court issued an Order , pursuant to the parties' stipulation, dismissing 2 all of Plaintiffs' Causes of Action against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") as 3 receiver of Washington Mutual Bank (erroneously sued as "Washington Mutual Bank, FA" and 4 "FDIC"), Washington Mutual Bank, and the FDIC, with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 25. Therefore, 5 FDIC's motions are MOOT, and are therefore DENIED, with prejudice. 6

On July 12, 2011, the Court issued an Order, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, granting Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. As a result, as the Remaining Defendants acknowledge 8 in their Case Management Statement, see Dkt. No. 30, at 3, the Remaining Defendants' motion to 9 dismiss, is MOOT, and is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110803

© 1992-2011 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.