Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08036/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08036-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

Fausto U. Cettolin, Jr.; Donna L. Cettolin,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

GMAC; Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc.; Executive Trustee Services,

LLC; et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8036-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Several motions are pending before the Court. First, Defendants have moved to strike

Plaintiffs’ motion to quash. The motion to quash is not pending before this Court because

it was not re-filed with this Court following removal from state court. See Doc. #13.

Because the motion to quash is not pending before this Court, the Court will deny the motion

to strike without prejudice to Defendants re-filing it if a motion to quash is ever filed with

this Court.

Second, Plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate this case with the Multidistrict

Litigation (“MDL”) case involving MERS. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to stay this case

pending a ruling on the motion to transfer and consolidate. Defendants oppose this motion

and in particular oppose the stay because Plaintiffs have not filed a motion to transfer with

the panel on multidistrict litigation.

Procedurally, because the MDL is pending in the District of Arizona, and because

Case 3:10-cv-08036-JAT Document 22 Filed 07/01/10 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

1

 “Cases filed in the transferee district that properly are part of an MDL ... should be

reassigned to the transferee judge,...and associated with the master docket. The reassignment

is made locally, without action on the part of the Panel.” THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER, TEN STEPS TO BETTER CASE

MANAGEMENT: A GUIDE FOR MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION TRANSFEREE COURT CLERKS, 4

(2008).

2

 The Court notes Defendants (only) sought oral argument on the motion to transfer

and consolidate. The request for oral argument is denied.

- 2 -

Plaintiffs’ case is pending in this District of Arizona, Plaintiffs were correct to file their

motion to transfer and consolidate with the undersigned.1

 Substantively, Defendants oppose

a transfer because Plaintiffs have failed to show that their complaint relates to the MERS

MDL.2

The common issue of the MDL is claims arising from the formation and/or operation

of MERS. MDL 09-2119-PHX-JAT, Doc. #1 at 3. Defendants argue that while MERS is

named as a defendant in this case, none of the claims relate to the operation or formation of

MERS. Plaintiffs did not file a reply in support of their motion to transfer and have not

disputed Defendants’ characterization of their claims.

The Court has reviewed the complaint (Doc. #1-1 at 2-5) and agrees with Defendants

that the claims in this case do not relate to the formation or operation of MERS.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to show that transfer and consolidation with the MDL is

warranted. Further, no stay of this case pending resolution of a transfer motion by the panel

on multidistrict litigation is necessary. Therefore, the Court will deny both the motion to

transfer and consolidate and the motion to stay.

Third, Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have not responded to this

motion, and the time to respond has run. As a result, Defendants have moved for summary

disposition of their motion to dismiss. Because Plaintiffs may have believed they were given

a de facto extension of time to respond by the filing of their motion to stay, the Court will

give Plaintiffs one final opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss (and the Court will

deny the motion for summary disposition). However, if Plaintiffs fail to respond within the

Case 3:10-cv-08036-JAT Document 22 Filed 07/01/10 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 -

time limit set below, Defendants may re-move for summary disposition, and the Court will

deem Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to be consent to this Court granting the motion to dismiss.

See Local Rule Civ. 7.2(i).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to strike (Doc. #14) is denied, without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to transfer and consolidate and motion

to stay (Doc. #18) are denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall respond to the motion to dismiss

(Doc. #15) by July 26, 2010, or the Court will deem the failure to respond to be consent to

the motion being granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary disposition (Doc. #20)

is denied, without prejudice.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ late request for extension of time (Doc.

#21) is denied with respect to the motion to transfer, consolidate and stay; it is granted to the

extent specified above with respect to the motion to dismiss.

DATED this 1st day of July, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08036-JAT Document 22 Filed 07/01/10 Page 3 of 3