Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

In re:

Case No. 21-20622-PDR

Samuel Fitzgerald Worrell,

Chapter 13

Debtor.

/

Samuel Fitzgerald Worrell,

Plaintiff,

v. Adv. Case No. 21-01382-PDR

Ditech Financial Servicing, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND 

VACATURE OF ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND 

HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Peter D. Russin, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on January 21, 2022.

Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 19 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

On December 17, 2021, NewRez LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss Adversary 

Proceeding. (Doc. 9). The Court entered an Order Setting Briefing Schedule and 

Hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, setting a hearing for February 2, 2022. (Doc. 11). 

On January 18, 2022, the pro se Plaintiff filed a Motion by Plaintiff for 

Rehearing and Vacature of the Order on December 29, 2021, Stating Falsely that the 

Defendant Filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Adversary Proceedings Lawsuit or, in 

the Alternative, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order Entered on 

December 29, 2021. (Docs. 17 & 18). In it, the Plaintiff suggests that “DefendantsDitech failed to make sufficient appearance and filed no proper nor timely answer to 

Plaintiff’s lawsuit” and that the Court has “sua sponte abruptly entered an order 

[wrongly] stating at the very outset that ... the Defendant filed a Motion to dismiss 

...” It seems the Plaintiff is instead suggesting that NewRez is not a party to this 

litigation.

To clarify, the Court has not, sua sponte or otherwise, made any 

determinations about the Motion to Dismiss or NewRez’s standing to file it in this 

case. The Court accepted the Motion to Dismiss because the Plaintiff listed “et al.” 

in his initial Complaint without naming each defendant in this case. The Court, 

therefore, is unable to discern without a hearing whether NewRez has standing. To 

the extent that NewRez is not a proper party to this case and lacks standing to seek 

dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court construes the Plaintiff’s arguments 

in his Motions as a response in opposition. Further, the Court denies the request for 

an interlocutory appeal both because the Court has not yet issued any ruling or 

Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 19 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

entered any order that arguably is appropriate for interlocutory review and the record 

does not clarify whether the request for interlocutory review was filed in accordance 

with the applicable rules.

1

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Motions (Doc. 17 & 18) are 

DENIED. The Court construes the contents of the Motions as a response in 

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

# # #

Copies To:

All parties in interest.

1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(3); 1292(b); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8004; Local Rule 8004-1; see, e.g., In re 

Travers, 202 B.R. 624, 626 (9th Cir. BAP 1996) (“Granting leave is appropriate if the order involves a 

controlling question of law where there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and when the 

appeal is in the interest of judicial economy because an immediate appeal may materially advance 

the ultimate termination of the litigation.”).

Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 19 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 3