Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02622/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02622-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 

**E-filed 08/13/2010** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

URSULA MCCOMAS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

EARL L. WALLACE, et al., 

 Defendants, 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-2622 RS 

ORDER RE BRIEFING ON MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO SEEK 

RECONSIDERATION 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, plaintiffs Jim and Danielle Earl request leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration of the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction. Good cause 

appearing, no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 18, 2010, plaintiffs shall file a supplemental brief 

addressing the following points: 

1. Plaintiffs acknowledge that Conejo Capital Partners, LLC, the present owner of record of 

the property at issue is not “subject to this Court’s equitable powers,” as it is not a named defendant 

herein. Notwithstanding plaintiffs’ contention that Conejo did not lawfully obtain title, what 

authority, if any, supports the notion that the Court may in effect deprive Conejo of possession of 

property as to which it is the owner of record without at least providing it the opportunity to be 

heard? 

2. Similarly, plaintiffs’ papers appear directed at showing, (a) they have a likelihood of 

success against the attorney defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Act and other 

Case 3:10-cv-02622-RS Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

claims, and; (b) that the foreclosures were unlawful. Plaintiffs have still failed to explain adequately 

how their claims against the named defendants, even if proven, will entitle them to set aside the 

foreclosure sales, at least in the absence of other defendants such as the purchasers and the lenders. 

As preliminary relief ordinarily must be closely related to the final relief plaintiffs would obtain 

upon prevailing on the merits, this appears to present a substantial barrier to the relief they seek. In 

other words, even if plaintiffs can prove a damages claim against these defendants, that will not, in 

and of itself, necessarily entitle them to set aside the foreclosure sales in this action as presently 

constituted. While plaintiffs appear to contend that these defendants’ alleged statutory violations 

rendered all subsequent foreclosure proceedings unlawful and void, that does not automatically 

mean that the sales can be set aside in the absence of other affected parties. 

3. Finally, as plaintiffs correctly note, at this juncture at least, there does not appear to be 

any defect in venue to the extent that plaintiffs seek injunctive relief directed against named 

defendants herein. Plaintiffs, however, are continuing to request an order staying the proceedings of 

the Ventura County Superior Court, and involving real property situated in that county. Why would 

this be an appropriate venue to seek such relief? 

No later than 5:00 p.m. on August 20, 2010, defendant Stanley Yates shall file a response to 

plaintiffs’ request for leave to seek reconsideration, addressing only the propriety of allowing the 

motion for reconsideration to be filed. In the event leave to file the motion for reconsideration is 

granted, a briefing schedule for addressing the merits of the motion for reconsideration will be 

established. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 08/13/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:10-cv-02622-RS Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2