Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00483/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00483-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvin Brown
Defendant
Central Mortgage Company
Defendant
Central Mortgage Loan Servicing Company
Defendant
Dorian W. Gray
Plaintiff
MTC Financial Inc.
Defendant
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
Defendant
Patriot Financial Corporation
Defendant
Trustee Corps.
Defendant

Document Text:

NO. C 10-00483 RS

ORDER

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 04/21/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

DORIAN W. GRAY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, d/b/a 

CENTRAL MORTGAGE LOAN 

SERVICING COMPANY; MORTGAGE 

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION 

SYSTEMS, INC.; PATRIOT FINANCIAL 

CORPORATION; MTC FINANCIAL INC., 

d/b/a TRUSTEE CORPS; and ALVIN 

BROWN, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-00483 RS 

ORDER RE: STIPULATIONS 

 On February 3, 2010, plaintiff Dorian W. Gray filed a complaint against defendants Central 

Mortgage Company, d/b/a Central Mortgage Loan Servicing Company (“Central”); Mortgage 

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”); Patriot Financial Corporation; MTC Financial 

Inc., d/b/a Trustee Corps (“Trustee Corps”); and Alvin Brown. The complaint alleged that 

defendants had violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), specifically 12 

U.S.C. § 2605, in relation to a mortgage loan on Gray’s home. Gray requested a temporary 

restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction to halt foreclosure proceedings. 

The Court initially issued a TRO but dissolved it after an April 14, 2010, hearing. Likewise, 

Gray’s request for a preliminary injunction was also denied. See Orders of April 14, 2010 and 

March 31, 2010. On April 19, 2010, five days after the TRO was dissolved and the request for the 

Case 3:10-cv-00483-RS Document 25 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 2
NO. C 10-00483 RS 

ORDER

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 

preliminary injunction was denied, the parties filed two stipulations. Both purportedly were signed 

by Gray on April 12, 2010, and by Central and MERS on April 14, 2010. The first is a stipulation to 

continue the April 14, 2010 hearing to July 8, 2010 and to extend the TRO until this time. The 

second is a stipulation to set aside a March 11, 2010, entry of default against Central. Several 

responsive documents from Central, including a motion to dismiss, are attached as exhibits. 

 While the Court is not opposed, in principle, to the first stipulation, it cannot be approved as 

it stands: the hearing which it purports to continue occurred five days ago, and the TRO which it 

purports to extend has been dissolved.1

 Should the signatory parties—Gray, Central, and MERS—

wish to obtain Court approval for the informal agreement not to foreclose which they have 

apparently struck among themselves, they should submit a stipulation for the Court’s signature 

which sets forth in detail the provisions to which they agree. The revised stipulation should be filed 

no more than seven calendar days from the entry of this order. 

 The second stipulation, in which the parties jointly request the Court to set aside entry of 

default, is less problematic than the first. As it appears likely, however, that Gray has only agreed to 

the withdrawal of default in exchange for a Court-approved halt to his foreclosure proceedings, 

approval of the second stipulation will be deferred pending submission of the revised stipulation set 

forth above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/21/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1

 Another potential problem with the stipulation is that only two of the five defendants have actually 

signed it. This problem is mitigated by the fact that two of the defendants—Patriot Financial 

Corporation and Alvin Brown—have not been served and are not yet a part of this lawsuit. The 

remaining defendant, Trustee Corps, has been served and has appeared, but it has declared its nonmonetary status and willingness to be bound by the Court’s orders. 

Case 3:10-cv-00483-RS Document 25 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 2