Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00751/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00751-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property - Real Estate

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Plaintiff also named “Doe” defendants, but such defendants 1

are not recognized in federal court. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA D. HOOKANO,

NO. CIV. S-08-751 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

 O R D E R

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, 

INC., a Washington State

corporation, "JANE

THOMPSON", an individual,

KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY,

PAUL BOUDIER, and 

DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

 /

On April 7, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint against

Washington Mutual Bank (“WAMU”) and other defendants. On September

4, 2008, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint against WAMU

alone. On September 25, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision 1

declared WAMU insolvent, and appointed the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as receiver. On January 6, 2009,

Case 2:08-cv-00751-LKK -JFM Document 52 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

parties filed a stipulation substituting the FDIC as a defendant,

and requesting the case be stayed until March 16, 2009. On January

7, 2009, the court entered an order substituting the FDIC for

defendant WAMU, staying the case until March 16, 2009, and vacating

the scheduling order. Through a series of stipulations and orders,

this case was further stayed until March 6, 2010 to allow the FDIC

to complete its determination of plaintiff’s claim. On March 9,

2010, the FDIC filed a status report indicating that on January 26,

2010, the FDIC disallowed plaintiff’s claim. The notice to

plaintiff disallowing her claim cited to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(6)(B),

which requires a plaintiff file suit on the disallowed claim or

continue an action commenced before the appointment of the receiver

within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the notice. Also on this

day, the FDIC filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended

complaint, which is set to be heard on April 19, 2010. 

On March 22, 2010, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to

shorten the time for this court to hear her motion for leave to

file a second amended complaint. On March 23, 2010, plaintiff filed

a memorandum in support of this motion. Plaintiff contends that

this court should hear her motion on or before March 26, 2010 to

avoid waiving a claim against the FDIC. The FDIC, however, filed

an opposition to this motion indicating that this case has already

been continued, and therefore, the court need not consider

plaintiff’s motion by Friday to preserve her rights. Specifically,

the FDIC argues that this case is continued because (1) the court’s

stay of this case expired on March 6, 2010 and (2) the FDIC filed

Case 2:08-cv-00751-LKK -JFM Document 52 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The FDIC also states that in order to continue her lawsuit, 2

plaintiff must prevail against the FDIC in the pending motion to

dismiss. The court notes that the FDIC may prevail in its pending

motion, yet nonetheless the case may continue if the court

dismisses the complaint without prejudice and with leave to file

an amended complaint.

3

a motion to dismiss. The court agrees with the FDIC’s analysis.2

For the foregoing reasons the court DENIES plaintiff’s ex

parte motion, Doc. No. 45. Plaintiff may, however, file a motion

to file her second amended complaint pursuant to standard notice

and briefing schedules. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 24, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00751-LKK -JFM Document 52 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 3