Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05583/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05583-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS AGBABIAKA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-05583 JSW

ORDER TO ALL PARTIES TO

SHOW CAUSE

On or about August 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint, which was then assigned to

this Court. See Agbabiaka v. HSBC Bank USA National Association, et al., No. CV 09-3982-

JSW (the “Related Case”). On November 12, 2009, the Court dismissed the Related Case for

failure to prosecute, after Plaintiff failed to file opposition briefs to a motion to dismiss, a

motion to strike, and a motion to expunge a lis pendens filed by HSBC Bank USA National

Association as Trustee for Ownit Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed

Certificates, Series 2002-2 (“HSBC Bank”) and Litton Loan Servicing LLP (“Litton”)

(collectively “Defendants”). On November 16, 2009, Defendants filed a proposed order

seeking to expunge the lis pendens on the basis that the case had been dismissed. On November

30, 2009, the Court approved the Order expunging the lis pendens in case 09-3982. On

December 24, 2009, Defendants recorded that Order in the Contra Costa County Recorder’s

Office. 

On November 24, 2009, Plaintiff filed the instant action, which originally was assigned

to Judge Armstrong. On December 24, 2009, Plaintiff recorded a second Notice of Lis Pendens

Case 3:09-cv-05583-JSW Document 44 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 3
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

relating to this action. On January 11, 2010, January 19, 2010, and February 5, 2010,

respectively, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, a motion to expunge the second lis pendens,

and a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The matter was

subsequently reassigned to this Court, and, on March 1, 2010, Defendants re-noticed the

hearings for April 9, 2010.

On April 6, 2010, the Court issued a Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions for

hearing, all of which were addressed to Plaintiff. In that Notice, the Court re-iterated the date

and time of the hearing. Plaintiff’s counsel, Phyllis Voisenat, did not appear for the hearing. 

Instead, she called the Court approximately ten minutes before the hearing and left a message in

which she stated that she could not appear because she had been in a jury trial in San Francisco

Superior Court since March 22, 2010. Ms. Voisenat also stated that she had obtained leave to

appear for the hearing on the assumption that it was scheduled for 10:00 but, when she realized

the hearing was set for 9:00, could not appear. Ms. Voisenat also stated that she would be in

trial through April 15, 2010, orally sought leave to continue the matter, and stated that she was

unable to file a request for a continuance in advance of the hearing because she is a solo

practitioner and has been in trial all day. 

The Court denied the request to continue on the record. In addition to the reasons set

forth in open court, the Court does not accept oral requests to continue. Further, this case is

subject to electronic filing. Thus, counsel failed to demonstrate good cause for her failure to

file a written request to continue the hearing. For these additional reasons, the Court concludes

that the hearing on the motions should not be continued.

The Court also stated in open court that it intended to issue an Order to Show Cause to

Plaintiff, but that it would consider issuing a ruling on Defendants’ motion to expunge prior to

the return date for Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause. Upon further review of the

papers supporting the motion to expunge, it has come to the Court’s attention that the Order to

Expunge Lis Pendens Due to the Court’s Order of Dismissal issued in the Related Case, states

that “[t]he Lis Pendens recorded on September 2, 2009, as Instrument No. 20090210866 in the

official records of Los Angeles County is expunged from the official records....” 

Case 3:09-cv-05583-JSW Document 44 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The Court appreciates Defendants’ arguments regarding the prejudice they suffer

because Plaintiff filed a second lis pendens. However, the Court believes a response to this

apparent discrepancy and its impact on the pending motion is warranted. Accordingly,

Defendants are HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to what impact, if any, this

apparent discrepancy has on the validity of the Court’s expungement order and the pending

motion to expunge the second lis pendens. Defendants’ response to this Order to Show Cause

shall be due by April 13, 2010 and shall not exceed five pages in length. Unless the Court

believes a response from Plaintiff is warranted, Plaintiff shall not respond to Defendants’

response to the Order to Show Cause.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are HEREBY

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why: (1) sanctions in the amount of $2500.00 should not

be imposed on counsel for her failure to appear at the hearing and for her failure to properly

request a continuance of the hearing; and (2) why this matter should not be dismissed with

prejudice for failure to diligently prosecute the matter. Plaintiff’s response to this Order to

Show Cause shall be due by no later than April 19, 2010. The Court shall defer ruling on

Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions pending receipt of Plaintiff’s response

to the Order to Show Cause. Unless the Court believes a response from Defendants is

warranted, Defendants shall not respond to Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05583-JSW Document 44 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 3