Deck v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 05/03/17 ORDERING that 39 Plaintiff's request to continue the evidentiary hearing is DENIED. Clerk to serve plaintiff by both mail and email. (Benson, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-0234-MCE-KJN PS
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
An evidentiary hearing in this case is presently scheduled for May 22, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.,
in Courtroom No. 25 before Judge Newman. (ECF No. 35.) As noted in the court’s prior April 5,
2017 order, the scope of the hearing is strictly limited to the following two issues: (a) whether
plaintiff signed the November 1, 2002 note and is thus a borrower for purposes of the loan at
issue, or whether plaintiff has otherwise assumed the loan; and (2) regardless of whether plaintiff
is a borrower or has assumed the loan, whether plaintiff has paid off the loan in its entirety.
On April 27, 2017, plaintiff filed a request to continue the evidentiary hearing by at least
45 days to allow plaintiff to propound discovery on defendants and receive responses to that
discovery, which plaintiff claims he needs to prepare himself for the evidentiary hearing, prepare
his experts and other witnesses, and file certain pretrial motions. (ECF No. 39.) For the reasons
discussed below, plaintiff’s request is denied.
As an initial matter, because the issues to be addressed at the evidentiary hearing involve
the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the court has an obligation to expeditiously consider and
resolve such issues. The court’s April 5, 2017 order setting the May 22, 2017 evidentiary hearing
provided plaintiff with more than sufficient time to generally prepare for the hearing as to
jurisdictional issues. Moreover, plaintiff provides no persuasive justification for why pre-
evidentiary hearing discovery is necessary. As outlined above, the issues to be addressed are
extremely narrow, and plaintiff should already be in possession of any documents or information
necessary to respond to those issues, especially in light of the two prior state court actions that
plaintiff had filed with respect to the property in question and in which discovery was conducted.
Finally, there is no need to prepare any pre-hearing motions. The only filings that will be
accepted by the court prior to the evidentiary hearing are those specifically outlined in the court’s
April 5, 2017 order: (1) the parties’ joint list of witnesses and exhibits; and (2) the parties’
separate hearing briefs, not to exceed ten (10) pages. (See ECF No. 35.) Both filings are due on
May 8, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. The parties are again cautioned that any witnesses or exhibits not
listed in the joint list of witnesses and exhibits will not be admitted and considered at the hearing.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s request to continue the evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 39) is DENIED.
2. In addition to mailing a copy of this order to plaintiff, the Clerk of Court shall serve an
additional courtesy copy on plaintiff by e-mail at the e-mail address listed on
plaintiff’s request at ECF No. 39.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 3, 2017
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?