legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Stough v. FDIC

Stough v. FDIC
03:03:2011

Stough v


Stough v. FDIC



Filed 1/27/11 Stough v. FDIC CA6




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS



California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.





IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


JUNE STOUGH,

Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE COPORATION,

Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent.

H035149
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. CV086862)


On May 30, 2007, Appellant June Stough filed an action in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Robert Klure and Washington Mutual seeking recourse for the alleged fraudulent transfer to Robert Klure of her real property located at Olive Tree Lane in Los Altos, California. While that action was pending, Washington Mutual Bank became insolvent and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver for the bank. The FDIC intervened in this litigation in that capacity. Appellant then filed an administrative claim she had against Washington Mutual Bank with the FDIC, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank. On August 23, 2009 her administrative claim was denied. On November 25, 2009, the trial court granted the FDIC’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed appellant’s claims against the FDIC with prejudice. This appeal ensued.
The parties have now agreed and stipulated to the reversal of the dismissal order to allow the parties to resolve their dispute on the merits in the trial court. They jointly request that this court reverse and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
The reason that the parties seek a stipulated reversal, as outlined in the “Joint Application and Stipulation for Reversal of Dismissal Order of November 24, 2009 and Remand of Action to the Santa Clara County Superior Court,” is that they now agree that the trial court does not lack jurisdiction over their claims, and they wish to resolve the claims on the merits at the trial court level without the additional costs and expenses associated with the appeal of the dismissal order on jurisdictional grounds.
The parties’ joint motion supports the conclusion that a stipulated reversal is appropriate under the facts of this case and the law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) For the reasons stated in the joint motion for reversal, the court finds that there is no possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal.
The court further finds that the parties grounds for requesting reversal are reasonable. These grounds outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of the dismissal order. These grounds also outweigh the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.

Disposition


The judgment is reversed pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Each party to bear their own costs on appeal. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.




______________________________________
RUSHING, P.J.






WE CONCUR:






____________________________________
PREMO, J.






____________________________________
ELIA, J.




Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com





Description On May 30, 2007, Appellant June Stough filed an action in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Robert Klure and Washington Mutual seeking recourse for the alleged fraudulent transfer to Robert Klure of her real property located at Olive Tree Lane in Los Altos, California. While that action was pending, Washington Mutual Bank became insolvent and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver for the bank. The FDIC intervened in this litigation in that capacity. Appellant then filed an administrative claim she had against Washington Mutual Bank with the FDIC, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank. On August 23, 2009 her administrative claim was denied. On November 25, 2009, the trial court granted the FDIC's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed appellant's claims against the FDIC with prejudice. This appeal ensued.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale