2950 SUMMER SWAN LAND TRUST
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a notice of related cases is not a pleading and therefore cannot be stricken under Rule 12(f).
Plaintiff moved to strike defendant's notice of related cases, arguing it was improperly filed and inflammatory. The court noted that the notice was n…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Indymac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR1,
Defendant. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiff 2950 Summer Swan Land Trust’s (“Summer Swan”) Motion to Strike Defendant’s Portion of the Joint Notice of Related Cases. (Doc. 29). Under Local Rule 1.07(c), “lead counsel has a continuing duty to notify the judge of a related action pending in the Middle District or elsewhere. The lead counsel promptly must file a ‘Notice of a Related Action’ that identifies
Rule 1.07(c) to “inflame this Court’s passions.” (Doc. 29 at 1-3). Kenny’s attorney, Lee Segal,3 asserts the cases found in the Notice of Pendency of Other Actions (Doc. 17) (“Notice”) have nothing to do with this case. Summer Swan’s own filing torpedoes this argument. The Court has received the exact same motion across four cases, all of which are listed on the Notice—2:21-cv-9-SPC-NPM (Doc. 29); 2:21-cv-37-SPC-NPM (Doc. 28); 2:21-cv- 40-SPC-NPM (Doc. 25); and2:21-cv-42-SPC-NPM (Doc. 29). But to Summer Swan’s detriment, the argument in its motion doesn’t match the realities of its case as compared to the supposedly “unrelated” cases. Summer Swan asserts “Defendant’s counsel filed the Notice as a ‘Joint Notice,’ as required by the local rules. However, the Notice is not actually ‘joint’ in that Plaintiff and Defendant take diametrically opposed positions within it.” (Doc. 29 at 4). But if Summer
Swan or its counsel actually reviewed the Notice filed in this case, they would see there is no assertion whatsoever that the Notice is filed jointly. The Notice clearly indicates it is signed solely by DBNTC’s counsel and was served on Mr. Segal. (Doc. 17 at 7). The Notice does not purport to be a joint filing, nor does
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record