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, )

Download PDF
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. ยง 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

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?