AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute over a foreclosed property from which Defendant Michael Jacobs and Defendant Ruby Handler-Jacobs were ordered to be removed pursuant to a writ of assistance granted to Plaintiff Warren Eaton. Proposed Intervenor Castle Green, LLC, sought to cross-appeal in the matter. The controversy centers around the validity of the foreclosure order, which Defendants argue was issued in violation of a bankruptcy stay.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant Michael Jacobs: Argued that the writ of assistance was based on a void foreclosure order issued in violation of a bankruptcy stay.
• Plaintiff Warren Eaton: Contended that Jacobs was not entitled to raise issues regarding the underlying merits of the foreclosure action due to failure to appeal two final orders previously entered in the case.
• Proposed Intervenor Castle Green, LLC: Sought to intervene in the case, arguing it had an interest relating to the property that could be impaired or impeded by the disposition of the action.

Legal Issues

• Whether the writ of assistance directing the removal of Defendants from the foreclosed property was valid.
• Whether Defendant Michael Jacobs could challenge the underlying foreclosure and sale.
• Whether Proposed Intervenor Castle Green, LLC, was entitled to intervene in the case.

Disposition

• The appeal by Defendant Michael Jacobs and the cross-appeal by Proposed Intervenor Castle Green, LLC, were both denied.
• The district court's order granting Plaintiff Warren Eaton a writ of assistance was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, James J. Wechsler, and Timothy L. Garcia, concluded that Defendant Michael Jacobs's appeal was timely with respect to the writ of assistance but found no reversible error in the issuance of the writ, noting that the bankruptcy stay had been lifted with respect to the property in question (paras 2-4). The Court also determined that Jacobs failed to demonstrate error on appeal, as he provided no facts or authority to support his opposition to the proposed summary disposition (para 4). Regarding Castle Green, LLC's cross-appeal, the Court found that Castle Green's motion to intervene was untimely and that it failed to demonstrate an interest in the property at the time of its motion due to the expiration of the redemption period. Consequently, the Court denied Castle Green's motion to amend its docketing statement to raise the issue of the district court's implicit denial of its motion to intervene, concluding that the issue was not viable (paras 5-7).