Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02367/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02367-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STUART FARBER,

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF

OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY

SITUATED,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-cv-2367-GPC-BGS

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS 

[Dkt. No. 46.]

vs.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.,

Defendant.

Before the Court is DefendantChase Bank’s motion to stay proceedings pending

the resolution of Coker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 555 (2013),

review granted and opinion superseded sub nom. Coker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,

N.A., 164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 413 (2013) which will decide the scope and impact of

California Code of Civil Procedure 580b and impact Plaintiff’s theories of recovery. 

(Dkt. No. 46.) On May 1, 2014, Plaintiff file a non-opposition. (Dtk. No. 49.) Based

on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to stay

proceedings. 

Discussion

A. Motion for Stay

“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its

power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing

- 1 - 12cv2367-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-02367-GPC-BGS Document 50 Filed 06/11/14 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

27

28

Landis v. N. Am.Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In determining whether to grant a

motion to stay, “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or

refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098,

1110 (9th Cir. 2005). These interests include: (1) the possible damage which may

result from the granting of a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer

in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms

of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could

be expected to result from a stay. Id.

In Coker, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order sustaining

defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend and held that California Code of Civil

Procedure section 580b applies to short sales. Coker, 159 Cal. Rptr.2d at 558. In the

instant case, Defendant seeks to collect amounts due to it following a short sale of

Plaintiff’s property. A resolution of the legal issue in Coker would simplify this case.

Here, there would be no damage or hardship from the granting of a stay as the

case is still in its early stages. A fourth amended complaint was recently filed on

January 29, 2014 with an Answer filed on March 6, 2014. In addition, a stay would

avoid inconsistent rulings and contribute to the interests of justice and efficiency.

Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and grants Defendant’s unopposed

motion for a stay.

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion for a

stay pending resolution of Coker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d

555 (2013), review granted and opinion superseded sub nom. Coker v. JP Morgan

Chase Bank, N.A., 164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 413 (2013). The parties are directed to informthis

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

- 2 - 12cv2367-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-02367-GPC-BGS Document 50 Filed 06/11/14 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

27

28

Court within five (5) days of a ruling by the California Supreme Court. The Court

VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 20, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv2367-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-02367-GPC-BGS Document 50 Filed 06/11/14 Page 3 of 3