Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02078/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02078-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL R. OUELLETTE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 10-02078 JSW

ORDER REQUIRING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by defendants JP Morgan Chase

Bank, N.A., as the successor in interest from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as

receiver for Washington Mutual Bank (“JP Morgan”) and EMC Mortgage Corporation

(“EMC”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Upon review of the parties’ papers, the Court finds that

supplemental briefing would be beneficial. Therefore, the Court HEREBY VACATES the

hearing set for August 6, 2010. The Court will reset the hearing at a later date, if necessary.

By no later than August 6, 2010 plaintiffs Michael R. Ouellette (“Ouellette”), Kelly M.

Wilson (“Wilson”), and Karrie E. Rennick (“Rennick”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) shall file a

supplemental brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss to address the following

issues:

(1) The Court agrees that JP Morgan is not liable for the alleged conduct of

Washington Mutual Bank in connection with plaintiff Michael R. Ouellete’s mortgage. In light

of the Court’s conclusion on this point, what misconduct, if any, do Plaintiffs allege that JP

Case 3:10-cv-02078-JSW Document 50 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

Morgan committed? If Plaintiffs allege misconduct by JP Morgan, where in their complaint do

Plaintiffs set forth such allegations?

(2) In light of the fact that Ouellette’s mortgage debt has been discharged in

bankruptcy, what specific damages does Ouellette allege that he incurred? In responding to this

question, Ouellette should delineate what alleged damages he suffered in relation to each claim

and which defendant allegedly caused such damage.

(3) Does Ouellette allege that EMC breached any other contract other than the deed

of trust? If so, where in the complaint do Plaintiffs set forth such allegations?

(4) Plaintiffs argue that Rennick and Wilson have standing because Ouellette

assigned them any rights he may have had to pursue claims against EMC and Washington

Mutual, including its successor JP Morgan. Plaintiffs contend that proof of this assignment is

attached as Exhibit 3 to their request for judicial notice. (Opp. at 4-5.) However, Exhibit 3 is

an “Order by Default Compelling Chapter 7 Trustee to Abandon Property to the Estate.” This

exhibit does not mention any assignment. Moreover, if as Plaintiffs’ contend, that Ouellette

assigned his rights to assert claims against Defendants to Rennick and Wilson, then on what

basis does Ouellette retain a right to assert claims against Defendants?

Defendants may file a response to Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief by no later than August

13, 2010.

Dated: July 23, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-02078-JSW Document 50 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 2