Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01892/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01892-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 12:2601 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) (findings &amp; purpose)

---

- 1 -

18cv1892

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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HUESO, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, 

INC., et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-1892-BAS-WVG

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO LIFT STAY 

[ECF No. 34]

Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application (“Application”) to lift the stay 

in light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceeding on May 19, 2020. (App., 

ECF No. 34.) Defendant states that because Plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceeding was 

dismissed without discharge or any resolution of the claims before this Court, “the parties 

stand in exactly the same position” as they were before the stay went into effect. (App. at 

4–5.) 

Plaintiff has not opposed the Application. See Hon. Cynthia A. Bashant’s Standing 

Order in Civil Cases § 6 (“Ex parte applications that are not opposed within two Court 

days must be considered unopposed and may be granted on that ground.”). While Plaintiff 

refused to stipulate to lift the stay, it appears this was based on his disagreement over 

reinstating the Motion to Dismiss before participating in an Early Neutral Evaluation and 

not over lifting the stay itself. (Jt. Status Rep., ECF No. 35; Decl. of Melissa Coutts in 

Case 3:18-cv-01892-BAS-DEB Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

18cv1892

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

supp. of App. ¶ 6, ECF No. 34-1.) 

Good cause appearing, the Court LIFTS the stay. The parties shall re-file, in 

consecutive order, the Motion to Dismiss, Opposition, and Reply by June 16, 2020.

1

 The 

Court further ORDERS the parties to contact the Magistrate Judge’s chambers no later 

than June 19, 2020 to schedule a case management conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 9, 2020

 1 Because the hearing date on the Motion only sets the briefing schedule for the Motion and does not 

indicate when appearances are necessary, there is no need to reset the hearing date. See Hon. Cynthia A. 

Bashant’s Standing Order in Civil Cases § 4B. If the Court decides to hear oral argument, it will issue 

an order setting the matter for hearing.

Case 3:18-cv-01892-BAS-DEB Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2