Hernandez et al v. LaSalle Bank National Association et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re: 	ANKE HERNANDEZ and 	No. 7-10-10637 JA
RICHARD GLEN HERNANDEZ,
Debtors.
ANKE HERNANDEZ and
RICHARD GLEN HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Adversary No. 10-1117 J
LASALLE BANK, N.A., as Trustee for
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-12XS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”)
filed by Defendant, LaSalle Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-12XS (“LaSalle”), by and through its attorneys of record, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl,
Harris, & Sisk, P.A. (Douglas R. Vadnais and Allison L. Biles).1 See Docket No. 11. The
central issue raised in this adversary proceeding is whether LaSalle holds the note (“Note”)
and is assignee of the mortgage (“Mortgage”) on Plaintiffs’ residential property located in
Mountainair, New Mexico. 2 LaSalle previously obtained a judgment and decree of
1 LaSalle previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Adversary Complaint (Docket No. 5), asserting that this Court
lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this adversary proceeding, and a Motion for Abstention (Docket No. 7). At a
scheduling conference held September 13, 2010, the Court directed LaSalle to file a motion for summary
judgment regarding its request for abstention and include any supplement to its Motion to Dismiss Adversary
Complaint. See Docket No. 9. Because the Motion for Summary Judgment incorporates LaSalle’s request for
abstention, and because the Court can resolve all issues now before the Court through the Motion for Summary
Judgment, Plaintiffs’ response thereto, and LaSalle’s reply, the Court need not separately consider the Motion to
Dismiss Adversary Complaint nor the Motion for Abstention.
2 Plaintiffs’ complaint identifies the following causes of action: 1) to determine the validity of interest in
property; 2) to determine a claim or cause of action removed from a state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1452; 3) to
obtain an injunction; 4) to recover money and property; and 5) to obtain a declaratory judgment relating to the
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 1 of 11

-2-
foreclosure against Plaintiff, Anke Hernandez, and other defendants in a state court
foreclosure action filed in the Seventh Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico, County
of Torrance, as Case No. D0722CV200800103 (“State Court Action”).3 LaSalle asserts that
this Court should abstain from adjudicating this adversary proceeding; alternatively, LaSalle
argues that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to prohibit this Court’s review of the
judgment entered in the State Court Action. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, asserting that
LaSalle lacks standing in the Bankruptcy Court, has not justified its standing as a creditor, and
has otherwise failed to sustain its burden under the summary judgment standards.
After consideration of the Motion, the response in opposition thereto4 , LaSalle’s
reply5 , and the record, the Court finds based on the undisputed facts that abstention is
appropriate under the permissive abstention statute. Consequently, the Court will grant the
Motion and dismiss this adversary proceeding.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is governed by Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., made applicable to
adversary proceedings by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7056. 	The Court will grant summary judgment
when the pleadings, discovery and disclosure materials on file, together with any affidavits
filed in support of the motion demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “[A]
party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the ...
court of the basis for its motion, and ... [must] demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
foregoing. See Adversary Complaint, Docket No. 1. There has been no removal of a pending state court action
to this Court.
3 See Certified copy of Summary and Default Judgment, Decree of Foreclosure, and Appointment of Special
Master, attached as Exhibit D to Notice of Filing of Certified Copies of State Court Pleadings (Docket No. 10).
4 See Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (“Response”) (Docket No. 13).
5 See Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 14).
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 2 of 11

-3-
material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265
(1986). 	The party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment, “may not
rely merely on allegations or denials” contained in his or her own pleading, but must “set out
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2), made applicable to
adversary proceedings by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7052. In determining whether to grant a movant’s
request for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to
the party opposing summary judgment. 6
UNDISPUTED FACTS
Plaintiffs did not respond directly to LaSalle’s numbered undisputed facts as required
by NM LBR 7056-1(b).7 Instead, Plaintiffs generally contest LaSalle’s standing as a creditor,
and assert that LaSalle has not submitted sufficient evidence to meet the standards required
for summary judgment. Specifically, in regard to the certified copies of documents filed in
the State Court Action which LaSalle submitted in support of its Motion, Plaintiffs do not
contest that those documents are true and correct copies of the documents filed in the State
Court Action. Rather, Plaintiffs assert that the documents filed in the State Court Action “are
based on false or fraudulent documents” and that “[s]ubmitting these documents in
Bankruptcy Court is a crime under Title 18 Section 152(4).8 Plaintiffs’ statement appears
6 Harris v. Beneficial Oklahoma, Inc., (In re Harris), 209 B.R. 990, 995 (10th Cir. BAP 1997)(“When applying
this standard, we are instructed to ‘examine the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.’ ”)(quoting Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 50
F.3d 793, 796 (quoting Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th
Cir.1990)))(internal quotation marks omitted); Henderson v. Inter-Chem Coal Co., Inc., 41 F.3d 567, 569 (10th
Cir.1994)(stating that the court must “view all facts and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from
them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party ...”)(citation omitted).
7 New Mexico Local Bankruptcy Rule 7056-1 requires the movant to number each fact that the movant contends
no genuine issue exists. NM-LBR 7056-1(b). Similarly, the party opposing a motion for summary judgment
shall number each disputed fact “shall refer with particularity to those portions of the record upon which the
opposing party relies, and shall state the number of the movant’s fact that is disputed.” NM-LBR 7056-1(c).
8 See Response, p.2, ¶5 (Docket No. 13). Section 152(4) of Title 18 provides:
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 3 of 11

-4-
aimed at their underlying contention that LaSalle has failed to demonstrate that it is the holder
of the note and assignee of the mortgage. Such statement is not sufficient to raise a disputed
material fact as to whether the documents were, in fact, filed or entered in the State Court
Action. The certified copies of the documents are self-authenticating.9 Similarly, the Court
may take judicial notice of documents filed in Plaintiffs’ chapter 7 bankruptcy case.10 Finally,
all properly supported material facts are “deemed admitted unless specifically controverted.”
NM-LBR 7056-1(c).
Based on the Plaintiffs’ complaint, the docket of the Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy case, the
affidavit offered by LaSalle in support of the Motion, and the certified copies of documents
filed in the State Court Action offered in support of the Motion, the Court finds that the
following facts are not in genuine dispute:
[a] person who – knowingly and fraudulently presents any false claim for proof against the estate of a
debtor, or uses any such claim in any case under title 11, in a personal capacity or as or through an
agent, proxy, or attorney . . . . shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 152(4).
This section is a criminal statute which must be enforced by the Attorney General of the United States or his
designee. See 11 U.S.C. § 158 (charging the Attorney General to designate United States attorneys to have
primary responsibility for enforcing §152 “relating to abusive reaffirmations of debt” or relating to materially
fraudulent statements in bankruptcy schedules”); Clayton v. Raleigh Fed. Sav. Bank, 194 B.R. 793, 794
(M.D.N.C.1996), aff’d, 107 F.3d 865 (4 th Cir. 1997)(per curiam)(no private right of action arises under 18
U.S.C. § 152(4)).
9See Federal Rule of Evidence 902(4) (providing that certified copies of public records are self-authenticating).
See also, Kline v. Tiedemann (In re Kline), 424 B.R. 516, 521 (Bankr.D.N.M. 2010(stating that “[a]ny
documentary evidence submitted in support of summary judgment must either be properly authenticated or self-
authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”)(citing Goguen v. Textron, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 13, 16
(D.Mass. 2006)).
10 See Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (providing that a court may take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject
to reasonable dispute in that it is . . . capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); In re Schottler, 1999 WL 766100 at *3, 251 B.R. 441 (10 th Cir.
BAP 1999)(unpublished table decision)(noting that Rule 201(c) “permits a judge to take judicial notice, whether
requested or not, and . . . that it is not error for a court to take judicial notice of related proceedings and records
in cases before the court.”)(citing Florida Bd. of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Charley
Toppino & Sons, Inc., 514 F.2d 700, 704 (5 th Cir. 1975); Selman v. Delta Airlines, 2008 WL 6022017 at
(D.N.M. 2008)(unreported)(finding that the district court could take judicial notice of the confirmation order
filed in the debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding “and any other publicly filed bankruptcy documents.”)(citing Van
Woudenberg v. Gibson, 211 F.3d 560, 568 (10 th Cir. 2000) abrogated on other grounds by McGregor v. Gibson,
248 F.3d 946, 955 (10 th Cir. 2001)). See also Rose v. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., 356 B.R.
18, 23 (E.D.Cal. 2006), aff’d, 295 Fed.Appx. 142 (9 th Cir. 2008)(unpublished)(noting that “a district court may
take judicial notice of public records related to legal proceedings in both state courts and in the district
court.”)(citation omitted).
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 4 of 11

-5-
1. 	On June 4, 2008, LaSalle filed a complaint for foreclosure against Anke
Hernandez and other defendants in the Seventh Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico,
County of Torrance, as Case No. D0722CV200800103 (defined above as the State Court
Action).
2. 	On July 16, 2008, Anke Hernandez filed an answer to the complaint in the
State Court Action. See Answer, Exhibit C to Notice of Filing of Certified Copies of State
Court Pleadings (Docket No. 10).
3. 	On February 20, 2009, summary judgment was entered in the State Court
Action in favor of LaSalle and against Anke Hernandez for foreclosure of the Mortgage (the
“Foreclosure Judgment”). See Judgment, Exhibit D to Notice of Filing of Certified Copies of
State Court Pleadings (Docket No. 10).
4. 	Plaintiffs filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on
February 16, 2010 (the “Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case”). See Case No. 7-10-10637 JA, Docket
No. 1.
5. 	A final decree and order discharging Plaintiffs was entered in their Chapter 7
Bankruptcy Case on June 1, 2010. See Case No. 7-10-10637 JA, Docket Nos. 33 and 34.
6. 	The Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case was closed on June 1, 2010. See Case No. 7-
10-10637 JA, Final Decree, Docket No. 34.
7. 	No claims were paid through the administration of the Plaintiffs’ no-asset
Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate. 	See Case No. 7-10-10637 JA, Chapter 7 Trustee’s Report of No
Distribution, Docket No. 22 (stating that the trustee “neither received any property nor paid
any property on account of this estate . . . and that there is no property available for
distribution from the estate over and above that exempted by law.”).
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 5 of 11

-6-
8. 	Plaintiffs filed the complaint commencing this adversary proceeding on August
2, 2010. In the complaint Plaintiffs allege that LaSalle is not the assignee of the Mortgage or
holder of the Note, and therefore did not have standing in the State Court Action to obtain a
judgment on the Note or to foreclosure the Mortgage; that LaSalle has orchestrated a fraud on
the bankruptcy court; and that LaSalle’s actions to foreclose the Mortgage interfered with
Plaintiffs’ sale of the Property. In this adversary proceeding, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment, a judgment for damages, and an injunction to restrain LaSalle from taking any
action to foreclose the Mortgage.
9. 	LaSalle filed its Motion for Abstention on September 3, 2010. See Docket No.
7.
10. 	The State Court Action remains pending. See Affidavit of D. Renae Richards
Charney, attached as Exhibit 1 to LaSalle’s Motion (“The State Court Case is currently
pending, is still open, and we are ready to proceed in that forum.”).
DISCUSSION
Bankruptcy courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.11 Proceedings over which
bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction include both “core” and “non-core” proceedings.12
“Core” proceedings are proceedings which involve rights or claims created by bankruptcy
law, which can arise only in a bankruptcy case, or are otherwise defined as core proceedings
11 Raven II Holdings v. Quest Title Co. (In re W.S.F. – World Sports Fans, LLC), 367 B.R. 786, 791-792
(Bankr.D.N.M. 2007)(stating that “‘[n]on-core’ proceedings do not invoke substantive rights created by
bankruptcy law, and can exist independent from the bankruptcy.”)(citing In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 97 (5 th Cir.
1987). See also, Gardner v. United States (In re Gardner), 913 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10 th Cir. 1990)(per
curiam)(stating that “[b]ankruptcy courts have only the jurisdiction and powers expressly or by necessary
implication granted by Congress.”)(citation omitted).
12 See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)(“ . . . the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil
proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.”); 28 U.S.C. §
157(b)(1)(“Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising
under title 11 . . . “); 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1)(“A bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core
proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11.”).
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 6 of 11

-7-
under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).13 “Non-core” proceedings are proceedings that are otherwise
“related to” a case under title 11 but which do not invoke substantive rights created by
bankruptcy law, can arise independently of a bankruptcy case, and are not defined as core
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).14 Whether a proceeding that is not a core
proceeding falls within the bankruptcy court’s non-core jurisdiction hinges upon whether the
outcome of the proceeding could conceivably have an effect on the bankruptcy estate.15
Plaintiffs’ complaint raises issues concerning the propriety of LaSalle’s state court
foreclosure proceeding. Plaintiffs contend that LaSalle is not the proper party to enforce the
Note and Mortgage relating to the Plaintiffs’ real property. None of the allegations in
Plaintiffs’ complaint invoke a statutory right arising under the Bankruptcy Code and none of
their claims fall within the definition of a core proceeding set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).
At most, this adversary proceeding falls within the Court’s “related-to” jurisdiction, inasmuch
as Plaintiffs’ alleged causes of action against LaSalle might be characterized as a causes of
action that are property of the bankruptcy estate.16
LaSalle’s Standing to Assert Abstention
Plaintiffs assert that LaSalle is not entitled to summary judgment because it has not
established “the threshold issue of legal standing in the Bankruptcy Court.” LaSalle is a
13See Gardner, 913 F.2d at 1518 (stating that “[c]ore proceedings are proceedings which have no existence
outside of bankruptcy.”)(citation omitted). See also 28 U.S.C. § 157(2)(A) – (O) (listing matters included within
the definition of “core” proceedings).
14 See Personette v. Kennedy (In re Midgard Corp.), 204 B.R. 765, 771 (10th Cir. BAP 1997)(explaining that “[a]
proceeding is ‘related to’ a bankruptcy case if it could have been commenced in federal or state court
independently of the bankruptcy case, but the ‘outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have an effect on
the estate being administered in bankruptcy.’”)(quoting Gardner, 913 F.2d at 1518 (quoting Pacor, Inc. v.
Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3rd Cir. 1984)(remaining citation omitted)).
15 See In re Gregory Rock House Ranch, LLC, 339 B.R. 249, 253 (Bankr.D.N.M. 2006)(stating that “[t]he
bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over non-core proceedings when they are related to the bankruptcy in that they
could conceivably have an effect on the bankruptcy estate.”)(citing Gardner, 913 F.2d at 1518)(remaining
citation omitted).
16 See Midgard, 204 B.R. at 771 (explaining that “‘[r]elated’ proceedings ‘include . . . causes of action owned by
the debtor which become property of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §541.”)(quoting Gardner, 913 F.2d at
1518)(quoting Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 307 n.5, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995)).
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 7 of 11

-8-
named defendant in this adversary proceeding; consequently, LaSalle has standing to file the
instant Motion. Further, as discussed below, Plaintiffs are not precluded by the Court’s
dismissal of this adversary proceeding from seeking in the State Court Action a determination
as to whether LaSalle is, in fact, the holder of the note and mortgage that is the subject of the
foreclosure action.
Mandatory Abstention
LaSalle asks this Court to abstain from this adversary proceeding under either the
mandatory abstention statute, or, alternatively under the permissive abstention statute.
Mandatory abstention is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2), which provides:
Upon timely motion of a party in a proceeding upon a State law claim or State
law cause of action related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title 11
or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which an action could not
have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under
this section, the district court shall abstain from hearing such proceeding if an
action is commenced and can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of
appropriate jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2).
The elements necessary for mandatory abstention are: 1) the motion for abstention must be
timely filed; 2) the matter must be based on a state law claim or cause of action; 3) an action
has been commenced in state court; 4) the action can be timely adjudicated in state court; 5)
the claim is within the Court’s non-core jurisdiction; and 6) there is no independent source of
federal jurisdiction that would have permitted the plaintiff to commence the action in federal
court in the absence of the bankruptcy case.17
17 See In re Mobile Tool Intern., 320 B.R. 552, 556 (Bankr.D.Del. 2005)(enumerating the six requirements for
mandatory abstention). See also Gregory Rock House Ranch, 339 B.R. at 253 (stating that “[m]andatory
abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) requires a showing of the following elements: 1) the motion to abstain
was timely; 2) the action is based on state law; 3) an action has been commenced in state court; 4) the action can
be timely adjudicated in state court; 5) there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction other than the
bankruptcy; and 6) the matter is non-core.”)(citations omitted). As determined above, this adversary proceeding
is, at best, a non-core proceeding.
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 8 of 11

-9-
LaSalle has not established that there is no independent source of federal jurisdiction
absent bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 with respect to the claims Plaintiffs
assert in this adversary proceeding.. Federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and where the action is between citizens of different states. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). LaSalle has not established that this adversary proceeding is not between
citizens of different States or that the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum or value
of $75,000. In the State Court Action LaSalle alleged an unpaid balance under the Note in
excess of $220,000. The Court, therefore, finds that mandatory abstention is not appropriate.
Federal diversity jurisdiction may exist.
Permissive Abstention
Bankruptcy courts may permissively abstain from both core and non-core matters.18
Permissive abstention is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), which provides, in relevant
part:
[N]othing in this section prevents a district court in the interest of justice, or in the
interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining from
hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case
under title 11.
28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1).
Permissive abstention is discretionary. Factors relevant to the Court’s decision to exercise its
discretion to abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) include:
(1) the effect that abstention would have on the efficient administration of bankruptcy
estate; (2) the extent to which state law issues predominate; (3) the difficulty or unsettled
nature of applicable state law; (4) the presence of a related proceeding commenced in state
court or other nonbankruptcy court; (5) the federal jurisdictional basis of the proceeding;
18 Beneficial Nat’l Bank USA v. Best Receptions Systems, Inc. (In re Best Reception Systems, Inc.), 220 B.R.
932, 952 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn. 1998)(“[P]ermissive abstention applies to both non-core related and core
proceedings.”)(citing Gober v. Terra + Corp. (In re Gober), 100 F.3d 1195, 1206 (5 th Cir. 1996)(remaining
citations omitted)).
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 9 of 11

-10-
(6) the degree of relatedness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case; (7) the
substance of asserted “core” proceeding; (8) the feasibility of severing the state law
claims; (9) the burden the proceeding places on the bankruptcy court's docket; (10) the
likelihood that commencement of the proceeding in bankruptcy court involves forum
shopping by one of parties; (11) the existence of a right to jury trial; and (12) the presence
of nondebtor parties in the proceeding.
Commercial Financial Services, Inc. v. Bartmann (In re Commercial Financial Services,
Inc.), 251 B.R. 414, 429 (Bankr.N.D.Okla. 2000), reconsideration granted in part by 225
B.R. 68 (Bankr.N.D.Okla. 2000)(noting that this “well-worn list of factors . . . was
originally established in Republic Reader’s Service, Inc. v. Magazine Service Bureau, Inc.,
(In re Republic Reader’s Service, Inc.), 81 B.R. 422, 428-29 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. 1987)).
Here, state law issues predominate. Any misrepresentation or fraud upon the
Bankruptcy Court alleged by Plaintiffs relates to their underlying contention that LaSalle has
failed to demonstrate that it is the holder of the Note and assignee of the Mortgage. Whether
LaSalle is the holder of the Note and assignee of the Mortgage is an issue wholly governed by
state law.
Second, assertion of Plaintiffs’ claims in this adversary proceeding implicates the
potential for forum shopping. Whether LaSalle holds the Note and is assignee of the
Mortgage is part of LaSalle’s prima facie case in the State Court Action. The State Court had
already granted summary judgment and entered the Foreclosure Judgment before Plaintiffs
commenced their Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case.
Third, the degree of relatedness of the State Court Action to the Plaintiffs’ Chapter 7
Bankruptcy Case, if any, is insubstantial, and abstention would not interfere with the efficient
administration of bankruptcy estate. There is no contention that Plaintiffs’ claims in this
adversary proceeding could inure to the benefit of the bankruptcy estate. 	No provisions of
the Bankruptcy Code are implicated by Plaintiffs claims.
Further, the pendency of the State Court Action is a factor supporting abstention.
Finally, judicial economy is served by adjudication of whether LaSalle holds the Note and is
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 10 of 11

-11-
assignee of the Mortgage as part of the ongoing state court litigation concerning foreclosure
of the Mortgage (if such issue has been or can be timely and appropriately raised). This Court
therefore will exercise its discretion to abstain from hearing Plaintiffs’ claims against LaSalle
asserted in this adversary proceeding.
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Motion should be granted, and
this adversary proceeding dismissed.19 The Court’s decision to abstain in no way precludes
Plaintiffs from raising in the State Court Action any issues concerning whether LaSalle is the
proper party to foreclose the Mortgage. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion
will be entered.
_____________________________________
ROBERT H. JACOBVITZ
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Date entered on docket: 	December 14, 2010
COPY TO:
Richard Glen Hernandez
Anke Hernandez
Plaintiffs
PO Box 863
Mountainair, NM 87036
Douglas R Vadnais
Attorney for Defendant
PO Box 2168
Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168
D.Renae Richards-Charney
Castle Stawiarski, LLC
Attorney for Defendant
20 First Plaza NW, Suite 602
Albuquerque, NM 87102
19 Because the Court finds that abstention is appropriate, the Court need not discuss LaSalle’s alternative
argument that the relief Plaintiffs seek in this adversary proceeding is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Case 10-01117-j Doc 15 Filed 12/14/10 Entered 12/14/10 17:04:37 Page 11 of 11