Stephen Buzzell v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 15-2330 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2330 STEPHEN F. BUZZELL; KIMBERLY B. BUZZELL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, as Trustee; RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORPORATION, a/k/a Residential Funding Company, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00668-MHL) Submitted: March 18, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen F. and Kimberly B. Buzzell, Appellants Pro Se. Jennifer Elle Bowen, Andrew Brian Pittman, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen F. and Kimberly B. Buzzell appeal from the district court’s order staying pending resolution the of the proceedings state in court the case district in court which they asserted the same claims for breach of contract and constructive fraud arising out of the foreclosure sale of their residence. * The action in the district court was filed against JP Morgan, which was previously determined to be lenders in the action in the state court. the state court proceeding will in privity with the Because resolution of result in res judicata application to the district court case, we have jurisdiction to address this appeal. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); see also Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. David N. Martin Revocable Trust, 833 F. Supp. 2d 552, 558 (E.D. Va. 2011) (providing standard for res judicata). A district court’s order granting a stay proceedings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. of its own Maryland v. Universal Elections, 729 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir. 2013). In determining whether to grant the requested stay, the district court should “balance the various * factors relevant to the The proceedings continue to be stayed as to Residential Funding Corporation due to its bankruptcy filing. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2012). 2 expeditious and comprehensive disposition action on the court’s docket.” of the causes of United States v. Ga. Pac. Corp., 562 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1977). The pendency substantially of a similar state court proceeding exceptional circumstances exist. Bank, 955 F.2d circumstances 930, may 934-35 be number of factors. found action in does federal not bar court a unless See McLaughlin v. United Va. (4th based Cir. on 1992). the Exceptional consideration of a See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 21-27; McLaughlin, 955 F.2d at 934; New Beckley Mining Corp. v. Int’l Union, UMWA, 946 F.2d 1072, 1074 (4th Cir. 1991). After considering these factors, the district court determined that they weighed reviewed the in favor record of and staying find no the abuse proceeding. of discretion We have by the district court in staying the action pending resolution of the state court action. See Universal Elections, 729 F.3d at 375. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting a stay of the action. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
