$FNMA #FANNIEGATE

Assuming you are referring to the filing of Document #27 (one of three filed), that is not necessarily so and it is on a case by case basis that such determinations are made. The same goes for the other same day filings.

What are your thoughts on the latest filing by the gov’t in the Delaware case?

Again, assuming you are referring to the filing of Document #27, it is a rather awkward and weak in content and a somewhat overbearing effort by the Defendants to convince the court to deny the Plaintiffs’ application for certification to the Delaware and Virginia Supreme Courts.

The Defendants argument is made up of these assertions:
1. “certification is not appropriate” and the court should not certify.
2. Federal law decides not state law
3. this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims (there are pending motions and this is not determined currently)
4. Federal courts regularly resolve these matters without certification
5. The Plaintiffs questions are not “novel, dispositive and difficult questions”
6. Since the above are so, do not certify.

In even more plain language, the argument is: This application ain’t right. There is no reason to do this, you have no right to to do this, it is unnecessary to do this. Why? Because we says so. We have the legal authority and power on our side and the Plaintiffs do not know what they are talking about. So, don’t do it.

If this is thought to be over the top, examine the increasingly and openly restrictive sequential statements made indicating applicable standards where the Defendants tell it like they believe it is and should be to the court on page 3:

1. “This Court has discretion to certify questions of state law to a state’s highest court.”
2. “It may certify questions to the Delaware Supreme Court “if there is an important and urgent reason for an immediate determination” because the question is of first impression or the law is unsettled.”
3. “And it may certify questions to the Virginia Supreme Court if there is no controlling precedent and the question is “determinative . . . before the certifying court.”

New Paragraph

4. “Certification is a discretionary function and should be utilized with restraint . . . .”
5. “Even though the certification process is available, “cases are not to be routinely certified.”
6. “Prudent exercise of this discretion is important.”
7. Courts should not misuse the certification process to the detriment of the highest state courts by seeking certification unnecessarily.

Then, read on to further review the content and tone.

Will the court decide to certify? Or not? That is not knowable from here.

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application for Certification to the Delaware and Virginia Supreme Courts
see: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Jacobs_Hindes/15-00708-0027.pdf