PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss, LLP et al
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/6/2017 ORDERING that the court OVERRULES defendants' objections to the proffer material filed as ECF Nos. 67 at 1-5 and 67-2 and 67-3, as these documents are relevant to the agreement and its potential applicability in this matter. The court will not consider portions of plaintiff's proffer unrelated to counsel's representations at the 10/20/2017 hearing. The court therefore SUSTAINS defendant's objections with r espect to proffer material regarding the Texas statute of limitations, ECF Nos. 67 at 5:12-7:9 and 67-1. Defendant is entitled to respond. Defendant's response, limited to ten pages, is due seven days after this order is issued, and should ad dress, at a minimum, (1) whether the Legal Services Agreement(s) governed the parties' relationship from the inception of Linza, and (2) if so, whether the New Jersey statute of limitations for legal malpractice governs this action. (Zignago, K.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
BARRETT, DAFFIN, FRAPPIER,
TREDER & WEISS, LLP, ET AL.,
On October 20, 2017, the court heard oral argument on the motion for summary
judgment brought by defendant Barret, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss, LLP. At hearing,
plaintiff’s counsel proffered a Legal Services Agreement that immediately preceded the
Agreement plaintiff relies on in its opposition. Defendant’s counsel objected. The court
instructed plaintiff to file its proffer on the docket and advised it would determine, following oral
argument, whether the court will consider the proffer.
On October 25, 2017, plaintiff filed its proffer. ECF No. 67. Plaintiff’s filing
includes a memorandum (ECF No. 67), a supplemental request for judicial notice (ECF No. 67-
1), and two declarations with attached exhibits (ECF Nos. 67-2, 67-3). On October 27, 2017,
defendant objected to plaintiff’s proffer, arguing plaintiff now “attempt[s] to reargue the entire
motion, with new arguments and evidence” by filing a proffer that exceeds the “single document”
proffered at the October 20, 2017 hearing. See ECF No. 68 at 2 (emphasis in original).
Following careful consideration, the court determines it will consider portions of
plaintiff’s proffer pertaining to the Legal Services Agreement. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “are to be construed to achieve the just determination of every action.” See Rodgers v.
Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)) (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1), superseded in part by statute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(6), as recognized in In re
Stein, 197 F.3d 421, 426 (9th Cir. 1999); S.G.D. Eng'g Ltd. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. Inc., No.
CV-11-02493-PHX-DGC, 2013 WL 6511841, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 12, 2013) (permitting
defendant to supplement its response and statement of facts in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment). Further, when a party fails to support an assertion of fact or fails to properly
address another party’s assertion of fact, the court may afford the party an opportunity to support
or address the fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(1).
Thus, in the interest of reaching the merits here, the court will consider the parties’
purported 2011 Legal Services Agreement and evidence related to the authentication and scope of
that agreement. The court therefore OVERRULES defendant’s objections to the proffer material
filed as ECF Nos. 67 at 1-5 and 67-2 and 67-3, as these documents are relevant to the agreement
and its potential applicability in this matter. However, the court will not consider portions of
plaintiff’s proffer unrelated to counsel’s representations at the October 20, 2017 hearing. The
court therefore SUSTAINS defendant’s objections with respect to proffer material regarding the
Texas statute of limitations, ECF Nos. 67 at 5:12-7:9 and 67-1.
Defendant is entitled to respond. Defendant’s response, limited to ten pages, is
due seven days after this order is issued, and should address, at a minimum, (1) whether the Legal
Services Agreement(s) governed the parties’ relationship from the inception of Linza, and (2) if
so, whether the New Jersey statute of limitations for legal malpractice governs this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 6, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?