Leff v. Bank of New York Mellon et al

Filing 7

ORDER Granting 6 Motion to Extend Time to Respond re 3 MOTION to Dismiss. Responses due by 5/11/2015. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/25/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

//
1\

1

"

REC,JVED
~ILED
-SEFVED ON
_ENTERED COUNSELiPAITTi£S 01 RECORD

Russell Todd Leff

2

Pro Se, Plaintiff

3

5004 Walbrook Lane

4

MAR 1 3 2015
CLERK US DISTRICT COUR
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Las Vegas, Nevada 89148

5

BY:

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9

10

Russell Todd Leff

) CASE NO: 2:14-cv-02001-GMN-CWH
)
)

11
12

Pro Se, Plaintiff

)

13

14
15

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

) MOTION OF PLANITIFF

AND

)

16

)

17

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. )

18

AND

)

19

FOR
45-DAY EXTENSION
TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS'

)

MOTION TO DISMISS
WITH PREJUDICE

20

NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING

)

21

CORPORATION

)

22
23

)

Defendants

)

FIRST REQUEST

24
25

26
27

28

MOTION OF PRO SE PLAINTIFF FOR A 45-DA Y EXTENSION
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the Pro se Plaintiff, Russell Leff respectfully
requests a 45-day extension of time, to and including May 4, 2015 to file the response to the

1

MOTION 45-DA Y EXTENSION

DEPUTY

1

2

Defendant's 17-page Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice and to further
respond to the Defendant's approximately 70-page request for this Court's Judicial Notice.

3

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4
5
6
7

1.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action challenging the guilt of the Defendants
for the violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act and for Extortion resulting in damages:
Violations have occurred in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et

8

seq. and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681, et seq. Further, this case has
9

10

already been litigated pursuant to District Court Judge Thompson's ruling of ordered

11

mediation, in which, subsequently the Defendants rescinded the default action because

12

there was no valid indebtedness and /or money owed, thus, collateral estoppel and res

13

judicata, preclude re-litigation of this same matter.
14
15
16

2. The Plaintiffs opposition brief is currently due fourteen ( 14) days from the date of the
Minute Order signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/6/2015.

17
18

3. An additional a 45-day extension of time, to and including May 4, 2015 to file the

19

response to the Defendant's 17-page Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint with

20

Prejudice and to further respond to the Defendant's approximately 70-page request for

21

this Court's Judicial Notice is necessary to ensure adequate time to prepare and file the

22

Plaintiff's response. Preparation of the brief requires the reading of the Defendant's 1723

24
25

page very complex Motion and review of the extensive number of exhibits.
4. The Plaintiffs education from college was in the field of engineering at the Junior

26

College level. The Plaintiff does not have any specific education beyond the Junior
27
28

College level or any advanced degrees beyond that specific Junior College level. In fact,
the Plaintiff has absolutely no formal legal education or any courses related to the
2

MOTION

4~·UA l'.

KX 1 ~N~lUN

1

preparation of legal papers. Consequently, because the response by the Defendants'

2

Motion contained approximately 90 pages of exhibits and there are substantially many

3

case laws that the Defendants have applied as their rebuttal argument which were

4

included in their Motion; there needs to be thorough research conducted. Further, the

5

response to the Motion to Dismiss may have life altering consequences for the Plaintiff
6
7
8

who is presently unemployed; i.e., the very real possibility the Pro Se Plaintiff may
become "homeless."

9

CONCLUSION
10
11

12

5. This Pro Se Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will recognize that the Plaintiff
needs additional time to address the merits and conduct an analysis of the exhibits of the

13

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. FRCP - EXTENDING TIME: the court
14
15
16

may, for good cause, extend the time.
6. This Pro Se Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will grant the 45-day extension of

17

time because the extension of time does not substantially impact upon the Defendant
18

19
20

Corporations.
7. The opposing counsel has not been contacted.

21
22
23

24
25

8. I swear under penalty of perjury that the preceding is true and correct.
Respectfully Submitted:

R4-0.:> ru

iJJ44.

DATED 3-L3 - IS::

26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have
through and including Monday, May 11, 2015 to file
his Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Complaint With Prejudice (ECF No. 3).

27

28

3

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
DATED: 03/25/2015