GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. McKeever et al
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART McKeever's 55 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 33 MOTION to Dismiss by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, GMAC Mortgage, LLC, Residential Accr edit Loans, Inc., Residential Funding Company, LLC, 53 MOTION to Dismiss Third Party Complaint; it is DENIED with respect to DE 33 Motion to Dismiss & GRANTING with respect to DE 53 Motion to Dismiss Third Party Complaint; response & reply times for 53 motion to dismiss by Bank of the Bluegrass are governed by a prior order at DE 66 ; amended to reflect this order is to be docketed in case 09-cv-362. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 6/18/10.(KJR)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-459-JBC (Related action: Civil Action No. 09-362) GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, V. AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF,
HEATHER BOONE MCKEEVER, ET AL.,
*********** This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time, R. 55, by one of the defendants, Heather McKeever, in an action styled Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Haffey, et. al., Lexington Civil Action 09-362, which is part of this consolidated action. For the reasons below, the court will deny the motion in part and grant it in part. I. Background Deutsche Bank brought this foreclosure action against Heather McKeever and Shane Haffey, a married couple, on November 9, 2009. Lexington Civil Action 09362, R. 1. McKeever filed a counter-claim and third-party complaint on February 9, 2010, naming Deutsche Bank; GMAC Mortgage, LLC; Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. ("RALI"); Residential Funding Company, LLC ("RFC"); the Bank of the Bluegrass and several of its employees individually ("BoB"); and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and MERSCORP, (collectively referred to as "MERS"). Id. at R. 17. 1
On March 1, 2010, Deutsche Bank, GMAC, RALI, and RFC moved to dismiss the counter-claim and third-party complaint. R. 33. On May 4, 2010, BoB also moved to dismiss the third-party complaint. R. 53. McKeever moved for an extension of time to respond to each of these motions. R. 55. To date, McKeever and Haffey have not responded to the motion to dismiss filed by Deutsche, GMAC, RALI and RFC. On May 11, 2010, well beyond the deadline for responding, McKeever filed the instant motion for an extension of time to respond to that motion to dismiss (R. 33) and to respond to the motion to dismiss filed by BoB on May 4, 2010 (R. 53). The third-party defendants objected to McKeever's motion. R. 56; R. 62. II. Analysis Pursuant to Rule 7.1(c) of the Joint and Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky, a party opposing a motion must file a response within twenty-one days of service of the motion. Failure to respond to a motion may be grounds for granting the motion. With respect to the motion to dismiss by Deutsche, GMAC, RALI and RFC, McKeever has failed to respond or to request additional time to respond in a timely manner and has not articulated a reason for the delay. Although the court declines to exercise its discretion to dismiss the case pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), it will deny her request for additional time with respect to R. 33, the motion to dismiss by Deutsche, GMAC, RALI and RFC. Because her request to respond to the motion to
dismiss by Bank of the Bluegrass, R. 53, was timely, the court will grant McKeever additional time to respond to that motion. Response and reply times for that motion are set out in a prior order by this court. R. 66. III. Conclusion Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for an extension of time by McKeever, R. 55, is DENIED IN PART with respect to R. 33, and is GRANTED IN PART with respect to R. 53. Response and Reply times for the motion to dismiss by Bank of the Bluegrass, R. 53, are governed by a prior order, R. 66.
Signed on June 18, 2010
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?