District Court, W.D. Tennessee, 2026

Stockton Mortgage Corporation v. Sharhonda Johnson, Stephon Johnson, and the...

Stockton Mortgage Corporation v. Sharhonda Johnson, Stephon Johnson, and the...
District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Decided May 11, 2026
Stockton Mortgage Corporation v. Sharhonda Johnson, Stephon Johnson, and the...

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION STOCKTON MORTGAGE ) CORPORATION, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) No. 2:25-cv-02991-SHL-cgc SHARHONDA JOHNSON, ) STEPHON JOHNSON, and the ) U.S. SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND ) URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ) Defendants. ) ORDER GRANTING IN PART STOCKTON MORTGAGE CORPORATION’S SECOND MOTION TO STAY/ABATE PROCEEDINGS

Before the Court is Plaintiff Stockton Mortgage Corporation’s Second Motion to Stay/Abate Proceedings, filed May 8, 2026. (ECF No. 22.) Stockton asks the Court to reconsider its April 10 Order Denying Motion to Stay/Abate Proceedings. (Id. at PageID 228.)

In that order, the Court denied Stockton’s request for a 120-day abatement of the proceedings to allow Defendant Sharhonda Johnson to resolve her recent bankruptcy case. (ECF No. 20 at PageID 221–22.) The Court cited Stockton’s failure to serve Defendants Sharhonda Johnson and Stephon Johnson with the Complaint, filed October 30, 2025, stating that it was “prepared to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of service” if Stockton did not serve the Defendants by May 10. (Id. at PageID 227.)

In this Second Motion, Stockton states that it “understands the Court is hesitant to allow more time to pass,” but it argues that the automatic stay arising from Sharhonda Johnson’s bankruptcy proceedings “prevents Plaintiff from perfecting service of process.” (ECF No. 22 at PageID 228–29.) See In re Bilfield, 494 B.R. 292, 301 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2013) (“The stay specifically bars any effort to commence or continue any judicial action against the debtor that could have been commenced before the bankruptcy was filed, including issuing service of process.” (citing 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1))). Thus, Stockton again seeks an indefinite stay of these proceedings. (Id. at PageID 229.)

For good cause shown, the Second Motion to Stay/Abate Proceedings is GRANTED IN PART. The proceedings will not be stayed indefinitely, but will be paused for 120 days in view of Sharhonda Johnson’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. Accordingly, Stockton must serve Defendants by September 8, 2026. If the bankruptcy has not concluded by that time, the Court expects Stockton to provide that information on the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 11th day of May, 2026. s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.