Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06806/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06806-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

LESLIE BARNES MARKS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TOM CHICOINE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06806 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT

INJUNCTIONS 

On Wednesday, April 4, 2007, plaintiff Leslie Barnes Marks filed an “ex parte request for an

order for this Court to hear motions of plaintiff Leslie Marks for temporary restraining order and

temporary and permanent injunction against defendants New Century Mortgage and Home 123.”

However, two days earlier, on April 2, 2007, defendants filed notices of bankruptcy filing by New

Century Mortgage Corporation and Home 123 Corporation. When a corporation files for Chapter 11

bankruptcy, under most circumstances, any judicial proceeding against the corporation is automatically

stayed, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Plaintiff’s action against New Century and Home 123 does not

appear to fit within any of the exceptions to the automatic stay, as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b).

Plaintiff’s action against New Century and Home 123 is thus currently stayed, meaning this Court can

take no action on plaintiff’s ex parte request. The Court therefore DENIES plaintiff’s ex parte request,

without prejudice to renewing the request if and when the automatic backruptcy stay is lifted. (Docket

No. 55)

Also currently pending before the Court are defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike certain

portions of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Though the Court cannot rule on the motions with

respect to New Century and Home 123, plaintiff’s action against defendant Tom Chicoine is not stayed;

the Court will therefore rule on the motions with respect to Chicoine. The motions are currently

Case 3:06-cv-06806-SI Document 62 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

scheduled for hearing on April 6, 2007. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court has determined

that the motions are appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the

hearing. An order on the motions will issue shortly. The scheduled case management conference is not

vacated, and remains on calendar for April 6, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06806-SI Document 62 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 2