Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02119/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02119-16/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

IN RE Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems (MERS) Litigation

MDL 09-2119-PHX-JAT

_________________________________

This Order applies to the following

member cases:

CV 10-216 

CV 10-216

CV 10-220

CV 10-221

CV 10-401

CV 10-413

CV 10-414

CV 10-415

CV 10-425

CV 10-427

CV 10-428

CV 10-455

CV 10-456

CV 10-460

CV 10-471

CV 10-482

CV 10-483

CV 10-484

CV 10-487

CV 10-493

CV 10-702

CV 10-703

CV 10-704

CV 10-705

CV 10-706

CV 10-707

CV 10-1083

CV 10-1084

CV 10-1086

CV 10-1206

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL 09-2119-PHX-JAT

ORDER

CV 10-1207

CV 10-1209

CV 10-1210

CV 10-1418

CV 10-1419

CV 10-1420

CV 10-1421

CV 10-1548

CV 10-1550

CV 10-1551

CV 10-1874

CV 10-1875

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 1739 Filed 04/13/12 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Stay (Doc. 1622). The Court now

rules on the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The member cases moving for a stay are part of a multi-district litigation (“MDL”),

wherein Plaintiffs in seventy-two member cases filed a Consolidated Amended Master

Complaint (Doc. 1424) (“CAC”). 

In the CAC, Plaintiffs alleged various claims relating to the formation and operation

of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and MERSCORP, Inc. (collectively

“MERS”). The Complaint listed the relief that Plaintiffs demanded as follows: (1) damages;

(2) attorneys’ fees and costs; (3) recission; (4) restitution; (5) a temporary restraining order

and preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting foreclosure, eviction, collection, and

transfer of interest related to the residences of Plaintiffs and class members; (6) a declaratory

judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights were violated, that the class members’ notes have been

rendered unsecured, and that class members’ loans shall be delisted from the MERS system;

(7) a quiet title order; and (8) pre-judgment interest. 

Various Defendants moved to dismiss the CAC for failure to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted. The Court then dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims in the CAC with

prejudice (Doc. 1602). Plaintiffs have appealed the Order dismissing the CAC to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals.

In their Motion to Stay, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining any

foreclosure-related action against any of the properties owned by any of the Plaintiffs party

to the CAC pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision on Plaintiffs’ appeal. (Doc.

1622 at 1). Various Defendants oppose the stay. (Docs. 1624, 1634, 1639, 1641). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court notes that Plaintiffs move to “stay any foreclosure-related action against

any of the properties owned by any of the plaintiffs . . . pending the outcome of the appeal

of this court’s order” pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 62(d). Rule 62(d) allows

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 1739 Filed 04/13/12 Page 2 of 5
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

 To the extent any individual member cases moved for an injunction and were

denied, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Stay does not ask this Court to modify the individual Orders

denying injunctions in those cases.

- 3 -

an appellant to obtain a stay by supersedeas bond. Although Plaintiffs couch this request as

“a stay,” Plaintiffs do not request that this Court stay any Order/Judgment that this Court

entered against them. If Plaintiffs were actually requesting that this Court stay its Order

dismissing the CAC, such a stay would not grant them the relief that they request, as this

would merely reinstate Plaintiffs to the position they were in after they filed their Complaint;

and, simply filing their Complaint did not have the effect of enjoining “any foreclosurerelated proceedings against them.” See Vacation Village, Inc. v. Clark County, Nev., 497

F.3d 902, 914 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“Rule 62(d)

is a purely procedural mechanism to preserve the status quo during a stay pending appeal of

a district court decision [.]”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 62(d). 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 62(c) envisions suspending, modifying, or restoring

an injunction when an appeal is pending from an “interlocutory order or final judgment that

grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c). Presumably Plaintiffs did

not move for an injunction pending appeal under Rule 62(c) because, in this case, an appeal

is not pending from “an interlocutory order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies

an injunction.” Id. (emphasis added). Rather, the dismissal of the Complaint had the effect

of dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims upon which their request for injunctive relief was dependent,

but the dismissal did not grant, dissolve, or deny any specific injunction.1

 Accordingly,

Plaintiffs are not entitled to a stay under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 62(c).

Even if the Court were to consider the Order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims to be a final

order denying an injunction, an injunction pending an appeal would not be appropriate in this

case. A party seeking relief under Rule 62(c) must establish a strong showing that he is

likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 1739 Filed 04/13/12 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

a stay, that the balance of equities tip in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public

interest.” Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Winter, 502 F.3d 859, 863n.16 (9th

Cir. 2007). Even if Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the

merits, if Plaintiffs establish factors [3] and [4], a preliminary injunction is also appropriate

when Plaintiffs have demonstrated “serious questions going to the merits” and the “hardship

balance tips sharply toward plaintiff[s].” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

1127, 1134-35 (2011). 

Plaintiffs’ argument that they are likely to succeed on the merits or that there are

serious questions going to the merits is essentially a Motion for Reconsideration. In their

Motion for Stay and Reply in Support of Motion for Stay, Plaintiffs argue that this Court

erred in construing the law applicable to a motion to dismiss and, otherwise, essentially

rehash the arguments that Plaintiffs made in opposing the Motion to Dismiss. See Doc. 1644

(“The District Court Erred in Applying Twombly,” “MERS is not a proper beneficiary,”

“MERS Assignments are Unenforceable and Any Action by a MERS Assignee is Invalid,”

“Splitting the Notes from the Deeds of Trust Renders them Unsecured,” “Assignments

executed by persons acting as MERS’ agents are simply not valid,” “The CAC Adequately

Pleads Lack of Agency,” and “Foreclosures Under MERS Deeds of Trust are Not

Enforceable.”). The Court declines to reiterate its reasoning for dismissing the CAC.

Because the Court has already considered Plaintiffs’ assertions that they are likely to

succeed on the merits and/or that there are serious questions going to the merits, and has

necessarily found an absence of both, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that

an injunction is warranted. Accordingly, no further determination of irreparable harm or

balancing of hardships is necessary.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 1739 Filed 04/13/12 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Stay (Doc. 1622) is denied.

DATED this 12th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 1739 Filed 04/13/12 Page 5 of 5