Bartlett et al v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL. GRANTING 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; DENYING Motion to Remand; DENIED AS MOOT 15 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objection to Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 8/22/2016. (Copy mailed to Bartlett's) (AMC, )

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION

AUG 2 2 2016
Clerk, U.s

. .

District o~~tnct Court
.
811109 5ontana
1

WILLIAM G. BARTLETT and
ELIZABETH K. BARTLETT,

CV 16-41-BLG-SPW

Plaintiffs,
ORDER
vs.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,
INC., FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION a/k/a
Fannie Mae, MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS and BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A.,
Defendants.
Before the Court are Plaintiff William and Elizabeth Bartlett's Motion for
Extension of Time to File Objections to Findings and Recommendations, (Doc.
15), and United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby's Findings and
Recommendations filed on June 20, 2016. (Doc. 11). In the Findings and
Recommendations, Judge Ostby recommends that this Court deny Plaintiffs'
motion for remand and grant Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Id.).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), the parties were required to file written
objections within 14 days of the filing of Judge Ostby's Findings and
Recommendations. On the fourteenth day, Plaintiffs filed a document that this
1

Court construed as a motion for extension of time to file objections. (See gen.
Doc. 14). On July 22, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and afforded
them 14 days from the date of the order to file their objections. (Id. at 5).
Plaintiffs' objections were due on August 5, 2016. (Doc. 14). That deadline came
and went and Plaintiffs failed to file any objections or request an additional
extension. Nearly three weeks later, Plaintiffs now move for additional time to
respond to Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for extension of time and
reconsideration. (Doc. 15). The Court already ruled on that issue, however. (See
Doc. 14).
Even construing Plaintiff's motion as a request for extension to file
objections, this Court denies the motion. As has been their practice throughout this
litigation, Plaintiffs assert that they did not receive the Defendants' response until
July 29, 2016. This time they provided the excuses that they were "out of town,"
and "additional circumstances" delayed their filing. As this Court previously
noted, plaintiffs are not relieved of their obligation to comply with the rules and
procedures of this court simply because they do not have an attorney to represent
them. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F .2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs are not excused
from complying with this Court's deadlines simply because they were out of town.
Because neither party timely objected, this Court reviews Judge Ostby's
conclusions for clear error. Clear error exists if the Court is left with a "definite
2

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax,
235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). After reviewing the Findings and
Recommendations, this Court does not find that Judge Ostby committed clear
error.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 11) are ADOPTED IN
FULL.
2. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Docs. 7 and 7-1) is DENIED;
3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED; and
4. Plaintiffs Motion to File Out of Time Regarding Defendant's Response to
Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time and Reconsideration is (Doc. 15) is
DENIED, as moot.

n<L

DATED this ))1 day of August, 2016.

,j

~"-P,oz-, _____.

.

r

tJa-a~

SUSANP. WATTERS
United States District Judge

3