Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE LIEBESKIND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLIANCE TITLE CO.,

Defendant

___________________________________

ALLIANCE TITLE CO.,

Cross-complainant,

 v.

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE LIEBESKIND, et al.,

Cross-defendants

 /

No. C-07-3962 MMC

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO MAINTAIN HEARING

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs’ “Ex Parte Application to Maintain Hearing on

Motion to Dismiss Set for November 30, 2007,” filed November 29, 2007.

To the extent plaintiffs assert a hearing is necessary to address new legal issues,

plaintiffs’ motion is, in essence, a motion for reconsideration. So construed, the motion is

denied, because plaintiffs fail to identify any cognizable ground for reconsideration. 

Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the Court has previously addressed the alleged “defect of

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 30 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

failure to deposit the funds with the court,” specifically, by finding such deposit is not a

jurisdictional requirement. (See Order Denying Stipulation to Transfer Funds, filed

November 19, 2007, at 2:5-7.) Further, contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, a district court has

discretion to award attorney’s fees to a stakeholder in an action proceeding under Rule 22

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Schirmer Stevedoring Co. v. Seaboard

Stevedoring Corp., 306 F. 2d 188, 194-95 (1962) (holding district court has discretion to

award plaintiff in interpleader action fees and costs from interpleaded funds).

To the extent plaintiffs alternatively assert that a hearing should be held because, in

plaintiffs’ view, the parties have “reached an agreement even with respect to ATC’s fee

claim,” (see Pl.’s Appl. at 2:18), the Court finds a hearing is unnecessary. If an agreement

has been reached, the parties can present it to the Court by filing a stipulated agreement

resolving all of the claims, or any of them, made herein.

Finally, given that a stipulated agreement has not been filed, if any party is of the

view that a referral to alternative dispute resolution, in advance of the January 25, 2008

Case Management Conference, would be of assistance, such party or parties may file a

request for a referral.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ application is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 30 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 2