Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00018/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00018-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 12:1461 Homeowners Loan Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR BRIAN BOUDIN, etc., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0018-WS-C

 )

ATM HOLDINGS, INC., etc., )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER 

The matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion to stay. (Doc. 30). The

skeletal motion requests that all proceedings in this action — but especially the motion to

dismiss and renewed motion to dismiss filed by defendant Residential Essentials, LLC

(“ATM”) — be held in abeyance pending transfer to multi-district litigation (“MDL”)

involving defendant Ameriquest Mortgage Company (“Ameriquest”). The plaintiff

obtained a conditional transfer order from the MDL panel on June 20, 2007. (Id., Exhibit

1). 

A stay pending transfer to MDL proceedings is not automatic. Instead, as this

Court has noted, whether or not to enter such a stay depends on which approach is “better

calculated to vindicate the interests of judicial economy, consistency of result, and

minimization of prejudice to the parties.” Betts v. Eli Lilly & Co., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1180,

1182 (S.D. Ala. 2006). The plaintiff does not acknowledge or address this standard, and

it plainly weighs against a stay here. 

As for judicial economy, ATM argues that this case is indistinguishable from this

Court’s recent ruling in Morrisette v. Novastar Home Mortgage, Inc., 484 F. Supp. 2d

1227 (S.D. Ala. 2007), which therefore controls. (Doc. 27 at 2). If this assertion is

correct — and the plaintiff has not suggested otherwise — this Court’s investment of

Case 1:07-cv-00018-WS-C Document 32 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 3
1

The Court has even more recently addressed challenges to Morrisette and

rebuffed them. Williams v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Civil Action 06-0799-WS-B. 

The plaintiffs in both Morrisette and Williams are represented by the same counsel as in

this case, so it is reasonable to suppose that the Court has already analyzed the issues

presented, and to be presented, here. Certainly the plaintiff’s brief in opposition to the

initial motion to dismiss, (Doc. 17), bears a striking similarity to those filed by the

Morrisette and Williams plaintiffs. 

-2-

resources in resolving the motions to dismiss will be minimal.1 Indeed, even if the

assertion is not correct, the Court’s recent experience with similar issues will flatten the

learning curve necessary for resolving the motions. The plaintiff has not suggested that

the MDL Court has any experience with similar issues, much less that it has addressed, or

will address, them so often that its facility with them makes it more economical for it to

address the motions than for this Court to do so. On the contrary, the MDL Court was

constituted to handle claims against Ameriquest, not against ATM, and the amended

complaint discloses that, while ATM is sued for alleged violations of the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), Ameriquest is not sued under RESPA but instead

for alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Home Ownership and Equity

Protection Act. (Doc. 22). On this record, judicial economy argues against a stay.

A risk of inconsistent results arises only when different judges rule on similar

motions. Betts, 435 F. Supp. 2d at 1184. Because the plaintiff has not even alleged that

the MDL Court is addressing similar issues under RESPA, no such risk has been shown.

As for prejudice, “no party has a right to remain in federal court when subject

matter jurisdiction is plainly lacking.” Betts, 435 F. Supp. 2d at 1184. Similarly, no

plaintiff has a right to delay a ruling on a ripe motion to dismiss simply so that the case

can be transferred to another forum where he believes he might stand a better chance of

defeating the motion. 

For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff’s motion to stay is denied. The

briefing schedule previously established, (Doc. 29), remains in effect. 

 

Case 1:07-cv-00018-WS-C Document 32 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00018-WS-C Document 32 Filed 06/27/07 Page 3 of 3