Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08177/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08177-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 

Gary F. Lowry, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-08177-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Quash Stay (Doc. 69). The 

Court previously entered a stay in this case pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, subject to 

the imposition of an appropriate bond. The parties disputed the appropriate amount of any 

bond, and the Court ultimately set a bond of $2,000 per month, with the first payment due 

by 8:15 A.M. on May 14, 2015. More than twelve days after this deadline, Plaintiffs have 

still failed to post this bond. 

 Plaintiffs’ arguments against quashing the stay amount to little more than a 

repetition of their previous arguments in this case. The Court has previously addressed 

these arguments, and will not do so again. See (Doc. 71). Plaintiffs raise two new 

arguments: First, they have apparently filed a new lawsuit in state court against 

Defendants, presumably in an effort to convince that court to issue a preliminary 

injunction. (Doc. 70 at 2). This fact is of no relevance to the pending motion in the 

present case, except that it further undermines Plaintiffs’ claim of good faith with respect 

to the bond. See (Doc. 71 at 2:28-3:3). Second, Plaintiffs state that they have requested 

Case 3:11-cv-08177-JAT Document 73 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

Defendants review their loan modification options “with the goal of a new modification 

application.” (Doc. 70 at 4). Because Plaintiffs have declared their indigence, it is unclear 

how any loan modification is a viable resolution to this case. Regardless, Plaintiffs offer 

no explanation for how their modification application permits them to evade their 

obligation to post a bond. 

 The Court will quash the stay. Defendants may proceed with a trustee’s sale and 

foreclosure of Plaintiffs’ residence. 

 For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Quash Stay (Doc. 69). 

IT IS ORDERED that the stay entered on April 23, 2015 (Doc. 58) and made 

subject to the posting of a bond (Doc. 62) is vacated. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may proceed with a trustee’s sale 

and foreclosure of Plaintiffs’ residence in accordance with all applicable laws. 

 Dated this 27th day of May, 2015. 

Case 3:11-cv-08177-JAT Document 73 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 2