Mazzone-Urie v. OneWest Bank FSB
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-06075
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mazzone-Urie v. OneWest Bank FSB, Judge Chen scheduled a motion-to-dismiss hearing and invited bankruptcy-related statements without deciding the motion.
Florentina Mazzone-Urie, the defendants, the bankruptcy trustee, Mazzone-Urie’s bankruptcy counsel, and the bankruptcy court.
What happened
Mazzone-Urie v. OneWest Bank FSB concerns Florentina Mazzone-Urie’s foreclosure-related lawsuit against multiple companies. She seeks, among other things, to prevent foreclosure of certain real property.
After defendants moved to dismiss, Mazzone-Urie began bankruptcy proceedings. The court noted defendants’ position that the bankruptcy stay does not stop this lawsuit but expressed concern because the property may be part of the bankruptcy estate.
Judge Edward Chen allowed Mazzone-Urie to oppose the motion by July 16, 2024, scheduled a September 12, 2024 hearing, and invited the bankruptcy trustee, bankruptcy counsel, and bankruptcy court to provide statements; he did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Mazzone-Urie v. OneWest Bank FSB · No. 3:21-cv-06075
- Edward Chen
- June 25, 2024
Background
Florentina Mazzone-Urie brought a foreclosure-related action against OneWest Bank FSB and other companies, referred to collectively as the defendants. One purpose of the lawsuit is to prevent foreclosure of certain real property. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which remained pending when the court issued this order.
After filing the motion, Mazzone-Urie initiated bankruptcy proceedings in Case No. 24-30350 in the Northern District of California Bankruptcy Court. At a June 25, 2024 status conference, the court considered how the bankruptcy filing might affect the district-court case.
Bankruptcy Stay and Estate Property
The defendants cited authorities supporting their position that the automatic bankruptcy stay—the legal pause that can apply after a bankruptcy filing—does not stop proceedings in this case. The court did not resolve that issue. It nevertheless expressed concern about proceeding because the real property at issue may be property of the bankruptcy estate. The court noted that the bankruptcy trustee or bankruptcy court might have views about this lawsuit that could affect estate assets.
Court’s Order
The court scheduled a hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss for September 12, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. Although the deadline for Mazzone-Urie’s opposition had technically expired, the court allowed her to file an opposition by July 16, 2024. The defendants could file a reply by July 23, 2024.
The court also directed courtesy copies of the order to the bankruptcy trustee, Mazzone-Urie’s bankruptcy counsel, and the bankruptcy court. Each was permitted to file a statement by August 26, 2024, addressing matters such as how this case and the bankruptcy proceedings might affect each other, whether the motion-to-dismiss hearing should proceed, and whether bankruptcy counsel or the trustee might participate in the case or a settlement conference.
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the effect of the bankruptcy stay.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.