Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01202/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01202-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karen Day Crosby, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation;

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-1202-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Cease and Desist

Foreclosure Proceedings; Defendants[’] Motion to Dismiss, Motions for Sanctions and

Motion to Preclude Further Filings by Plaintiff; Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint;

and State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Docs. 6, 7, 8, 10, 17.) No responses have

been filed.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) by Aegis Mortgage Corporation, CalWestern Reconveyance Corporation, Aurora Loan Servicing, Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., McCarthy, Holthus & Levine and Paul M. Levine will be

granted with prejudice because Plaintiff is barred from relitigating claims that were raised

or could have been raised in her state court action against the same Defendants upon

which final judgment has been entered. Cell Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lash Group, Inc., 586

F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Case 2:10-cv-01202-NVW Document 18 Filed 07/23/10 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

27

28

- 2 -

Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 will be denied because

they did not show that they complied with the grace period of Rule 11.

Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Future Filings by Plaintiff will be denied because

this lawsuit is Plaintiff’s first improper filing. However, any similar future filings likely

will result in both sanctions and an injunction against Plaintiff.

The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) by Defendants Pinal County Recorder, Laura

Dean-Lytle, and Pinal County Sheriff, Paul Babeau, will be granted with prejudice for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Any attempt to cure by

amendment would be futile.

The State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) by the Honorable Robert

Carter Olson and the Honorable Gilbert V. Figueroa will be granted with prejudice

because judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for their judicial

acts. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S. Ct. 286, 288 (1991). 

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice as to all

Defendants, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Cease and Desist Foreclosure Proceedings

(Doc. 6) will be denied as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) by

Aegis Mortgage Corporation, Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, Aurora Loan

Servicing, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., McCarthy, Holthus & Levine

and Paul M. Levine is granted, dismissing the Complaint with prejudice as to these

Defendants as res judicata.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11 (Doc. 8) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Future Filings

by Plaintiff (Doc. 7) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) by Defendants

Pinal County Recorder, Laura Dean-Lytle, and Pinal County Sheriff, Paul Babeau, is

Case 2:10-cv-01202-NVW Document 18 Filed 07/23/10 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

27

28

- 3 -

granted, dismissing the Complaint with prejudice as to these Defendants for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

17) by the Honorable Robert Carter Olson and the Honorable Gilbert V. Figueroa will be

granted, dismissing the Complaint with prejudice as to these Defendants under the

doctrine of judicial immunity.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Cease and

Desist Foreclosure Proceedings (Doc. 6) is denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of

Defendants and against Plaintiff. The Clerk shall terminate this case.

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01202-NVW Document 18 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 3