Greene v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Charlyn Greene, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
) 	STRIKE AND TO LIFT STAY
v. 	)
)
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, d/b/a 	)
Mr. Cooper, et al., 	) 	Case No.: 1:24-cv-00087
)
Respondents. 	)
On December 2, 2024, the court ordered a stay of the above-captioned matter pending
further order. (Doc. No. 61). The court further denied Petitioner Charlyn Greene’s (“Greene”)
Motion for Default Judgment, “Motion for Summary Default Judgment ie; CONFESSED
JUDGMENT,” multiple motions to strike, dismissed Greene’s claims against Respondent Debbie
Conway d/b/a Clark County Recorder’s Office, deemed moot the original Motion to Dismiss filed
by Respondent MTC Financial, Inc. d/b/a/ Trustee Corp. (“MTC”) as it was superseded by the
Amended Motion to Dismiss, and denied Respondent Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, d/b/a Mr.
Cooper’s (“Nationstar”) motion for hearing on its pending motions.
On April 2, 2025, Greene filed a Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 62) and a Motion to Lift Stay
(Doc. No. 63). In the Motion to Strike, Greene requested the court “strike all pleadings, motions,
and filings submitted by Respondents’ legal counsel for lack of standing in Equity and procedural
invalidity.” (Doc. No. 62 at 1). As to the Motion to Lift Stay, Greene requested the court
“immediately lift the indefinite stay imposed on December 02, 2024, and compel enforcement of
the final administrative judgment already obtained by Petitioner.” (Doc. No. 63 at 1). In moving
for the lifting of the stay, Greene argued the stay is without justification and in violation of
fundamental equity principles. Notably, “[t]he indefinite stay imposed by this forum of conscience
Case 1:24-cv-00087-CRH Document 68 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 4

2
obstructs justice without lawful basis or judicial purpose. Such unjustified prolonged inaction
contravenes long-established precedent forbidding courts from using procedural tactics to evade
enforcement of valid judgments. Courts may not indefinitely defer ruling on properly presented
motions absent compelling justification.” (Id. at 2).
On April 11, 2025, Nationstar filed a response in opposition to Greene’s Motion to Strike
and Motion to Lift Stay. (Doc. No. 66). Therein, Nationstar argued the motion to strike should be
denied as Greene previously filed multiple motions to strike on similar grounds as the instant
motion, the instant motion offers nothing new, and the court denied the prior motions. As to the
Motion to Lift Stay, Nationstar asserted that Greene raised the same arguments as in previous
filings, and the fully briefed Motion to Dismiss addresses them.
On April 24, 2025, Greene filed a reply to Nationstar’s response. (Doc. No. 67). In her
reply, 	Greene 	opposed 	Nationstar’s 	“false 	and 	baseless 	accusation 	of 	fraud,” 	regarding
Nationstar’s contention that Greene continues to demand judgment based on a submission of false
and fraudulent documents purporting to satisfy her mortgage loan to Nationstar. She argued,
The accusation is vague, conclusory, and clearly intended to distract from
Respondent’s own procedural silence and default. Respondents deceitful filing is
not a legitimate defense. It is a calculated smear designed to provoke, distort the
record, and shift attention away from the substantive issues before the Court –
including Petitioner’s perfected administrative judgment and Respondent’s failure
to rebut, respond, or cure.
(Id. at 2).
Turning first to the Motion to Strike, the court is not inclined to again readdress this issue.
As indicated by Nationstar in its response, this court has previously denied multiple motions to
strike filed by Greene as frivolous, all of which have requested this court strike all of Respondents’
filings.
Case 1:24-cv-00087-CRH Document 68 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 4

3
In terms of Greene’s Motion to Lift Stay, the court previously ordered this action stayed
pending further order of the court, also opining that “[t]he court neither expects nor required any
further briefing from the parties at this time.” (Doc. No. 61 at 4). Greene now argues that the court
“closed the record” and “created a procedural vacuum in which relief is indefinitely deferred and
no remedy is available – unless this Court acts on its ministerial duty.” (Doc. No. 63 at 6). Greene
further contended:
Yet four (4) months later, no “further order” has been issued. This Court has avoided
ruling on all of Petitioner’s properly submitted motions seeking enforcement and
equitable remedy, choosing instead to issue orders only on non-substantive or
peripheral filings. In Equity, this extended silence is not neutral – it is judicial
avoidance. By foreclosing all further briefing while simultaneously refusing to
issue a ruling, this Court has created a closed loop designed to preserve procedural
inaction. Petitioner now has reasonable cause to believe that this Court intends to
avoid responsibility for enforcement and may be awaiting appellate intervention to
resolve the matter in its place. Such strategic inaction is irreconcilable with the duty
of an Equity Court, where delay in the fact of a complete and unrebutted record
constitutes a denial of justice.
(Id. at 6-7). The court is not inclined to lift the stay based on Greene’s contention that this court
has engaged in judicial avoidance and procedural inaction. The court ordered this action stayed
until resolution of the pending motions in an attempt to reduce the expenditure of the parties’ time
and resources. Contrary to what Greene may believe, this court has an extensive criminal and civil
docket, with criminal matters often taking precedence due to the time-sensitive nature of the
proceedings. While the court is cognizant of the frustration that may occur in waiting for the court
to rule on motions, each person views their case as the most important, and the reality is that
litigation is a time-consuming matter.
Greene’s Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 62) and Motion to Lift Stay (Doc. No. 63) are
DENIED. The court further cautions Greene that continued attempts to file duplicative motions
on similar grounds without offering any new information will not be taken in good faith.
Case 1:24-cv-00087-CRH Document 68 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:24-cv-00087-CRH Document 68 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 4