Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01999/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01999-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SUZANNE RYAN-BEEDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON fka 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE 

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE 

CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE 

CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN 

TRUST 2004-25CB, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 

2004-25CB; DITECH FINANCIAL, 

LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-01999 WBS EFB

ORDER RE: MOTION TO LIFT STAY 

AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Suzanne Ryan-Beedy filed this action against 

defendants Ditech Financial, LLC (“Ditech”) and the Bank of New 

York Mellon fka The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Benefit 

of the Certificate Holders of the CWALT, Inc. (“BONY” or “Bank of 

New York Mellon”) arising out of defendants’ alleged acts or 

Case 2:17-cv-01999-WBS-JDP Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 4
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

omissions concerning residential mortgage loan modification 

transactions and the foreclosure of plaintiff’s property. After 

plaintiff filed suit, Ditech filed for bankruptcy and this action 

was automatically stayed with respect to Ditech. (See Order 

Granting Stay (Docket No. 47).) The court then stayed the 

proceedings because, for most of plaintiff’s claims, “BONY’s 

liability . . . [was] predicated on Ditech’s,” and “BONY would be 

entitled to an indemnity or reimbursement from Ditech for any 

judgment.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff now moves to lift the stay and 

to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Mot. (Docket No. 62).) 

I. Motion to Lift Stay

Plaintiff argues that the proposed Second Amended 

Complaint (“SAC” (Docket No. 62-2)) avoids the circumstances that 

previously led the court to stay the proceedings because the SAC 

“no longer intertwines causes of action involving Ditech.” (Mot. 

at 5.)

“In the absence of special circumstances, stays 

pursuant to section 362(a) are limited to debtors and do not 

include [claims against] non-bankrupt co-defendants.” IngersollRand Fin. Corp. v. Miller Mining Co., 817 F.2d 1424, 1427 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (citing Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am. v. 

Butler, 803 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1986)). In granting the stay, 

this court found that such special circumstances existed and a 

“broader stay of claims” was required because a judgment against 

BONY would in effect be a judgment against Ditech. (Order 

Granting Stay at 5-6.) 

The proposed SAC does not resolve the interdependence 

of BONY and Ditech’s liabilities. The wrongful foreclosure 

Case 2:17-cv-01999-WBS-JDP Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 4
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

claim, for example, is based, in part, on the allegation that 

there was a failure “to properly review [plaintiff’s] complete

modification application and [Ditech] simply mov[ed] forward with 

the foreclosure despite assurances that the foreclosure would 

necessarily be postponed.” (Compare SAC ¶ 78, with First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 88(a)(i) (Docket No. 16) (“[S]everal DITECH

representatives told Plaintiff that if she submitted a complete 

loan modification application before the July 7, 2017 foreclosure 

sale date, DITECH would postpone the foreclosure sale”).) 

Likewise, the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim 

is based, in part, on allegations that Ditech “misled Plaintiff 

with the false hope that simply submitting a complete loan 

modification application would necessarily lead to a postponement 

of the foreclosure sale” and “induc[ed] her to follow the path of 

a loan modification to stop a foreclosure Defendant never 

intended to stop, all the while telling her they would not sell 

the Subject Property.” (SAC ¶¶ 85, 90.) Finally, the Unfair 

Business Practices claim likewise rests, in part, on allegations 

that plaintiff was told “she would not lose her property if she 

followed BONYM/DITECH’s instruction to submit a complete 

modification application, without explaining to Plaintiff that it 

was going to foreclose regardless of her application.” (SAC ¶ 

99.) 

These claims all depend on Ditech’s purported 

wrongdoing, and the court therefore cannot “determine whether 

BONY is liable to plaintiff on these claims without ‘thinking 

about the issues’ undergirding plaintiff’s claim against bankrupt 

defendant Ditech.” (See Order Granting Stay at 6 (citing Dean v. 

Case 2:17-cv-01999-WBS-JDP Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1995).) 

Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to lift the 

stay.

II. Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Independently of the SAC’s failure to cure the 

circumstances that prompted this court to stay the proceedings, 

the SAC includes an additional claim for negligence. (SAC ¶ 72-

76.) Although the claim excludes references to Ditech, the 

negligence claim in the SAC is indistinguishable from the one 

pled in the First Amended Complaint (FAC ¶¶ 113-117), which the 

court dismissed without leave to amend. (Docket No. 31.) 

Indeed, plaintiff states that the proposed claim “further 

detail[s] the actions of BONYM.” (Reply at 2 (Docket No. 64).) 

Plaintiff has not requested leave to replead this claim and 

cannot do so at this point in the proceedings. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to lift 

stay and motion to file a Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 

62) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice to 

plaintiff’s filing an amended complaint that complies with this 

Order.

Dated: June 11, 2020

Case 2:17-cv-01999-WBS-JDP Document 66 Filed 06/11/20 Page 4 of 4