OTTO v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the plaintiffs letter motion (filed herewith) to reconsider grant of the extension of Phelan Hallinans time to extend its time to answer the complaint(ECF No. 7) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 12/29/15. (sr, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DENISE OTTO, Civ. No. 15-8240 (KM) Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al. Defendants. MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.: This morning I granted a routine 30-day extension of time to file a response to a complaint. (ECF No. 7) The request, made on behalf of PHELAN 1 HALLINAN, LLP, one of four defendants, stated that it was seeking counsel, and that the plaintiff did not consent to the adjournment. I have now received a letter dated December 28, 2015, from the plaintiff, Ms. Otto, in which she states that three days prior to Phelan Hallinan’s request, the defendant declined to consent to an adjournment of a sheriff’s sale of her property. (I am simultaneously filing Ms. Otto’s letter.) She states that she “had to use [herj last stay and the Sheriff Sale on my property is now scheduled for 1/5/2016.” (Given defendant’s position, it is understandable that the plaintiff may have been in no mood to cooperate.) I will treat the plaintiff’s letter as a motion to reconsider my grant of the extension. Phelan Hallinan is a defendant, but it is also a law firm. Counsel are admonished that, particularly when blandly seeking what appears to be a routine extension against a pro se plaintiff, the relevant circumstances should The other three defendants have responded to the Complaint with a motion to dismiss, filed December 21, 2015. (ECF No. 3) 1 be fully stated. I will assume good faith in this instance, but will be less indulgent about any similar lapse in the future. That said, there is nothing about the filing of Phelan Hallinan’s answer or other responsive pleading, whether early or late, that would affect the date of the Sheriff’s sale. As to that, the plaintiff must pursue whatever remedies are available to her. ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, this 29th day of December, 2015, that the plaintiff’s letter motion (filed herewith) to reconsider my grant of an extension of Phelan Hallinan’s time to extend its time to answer the complaint (ECF No. 7) is DENIED. HON. KEVIN 2 CNULTY, U. .J. Denise A Otto 139-141 Western Parkway lrvington, New Jersey 07111 December, 28 2015 The Honorable Kevin McNulty Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Bldg. & U.S Courthouse 50 Walnut Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 RE: Denise Otto v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. Docket No.: 2:15-cv-08240-KM-MAH Property: 139-141 Western Parkway, Irvington, NJ 07111 Dear Honorable Kevin McNulty, In response to the letter enclosed and dated December 23, 2015 from Defendant Phellan, Hallinan Diamond, PC, Defendant failed to mention in their letter that three days prior to their request, I made a request to the Defendant to adjourn the Sheriff Sale on my property which was schedule for 12/15/20 15. I made this request so that I did not use my last stay. Defendant refused although I reached out to them twice that day. Therefore, I had to use my last stay and the Sheriff Sale on my property is now scheduled for 1/5/20 16. Respectfully Submitted, enise A Otto cc: Phelan Hallinan LLP PHELAN IL4LLINAN DIAMOND & JONES, PC 400 Fellowship Road Suite 100 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 856-813-5500 Fax: 856-813-5501 December 14, 2015 Lisa Wilson New Jersey Office Representing Lenders in New Jersey DENISE OTTO, PRO SE 35 ELLERY AVENUE IRVINGTON, NJ 071111410 RE: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR BNC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-2, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-2, vs. DENISE OTTO, Et Al. Property Address: 139-141 WESTERN PARKWAY, IRVFNGTON, NJ 07111 Docket #: F-026230-12 File#: NW-11378 Ladies / Gentlemen: The Sheriff’s sale in the above captioned matter was scheduled for: 12/15/2015. The sale has been adjourned and is now scheduled at the office of: ESSEX County Sheriffs Office on 01/05/2016 at 01:30 PM. Sincerely, Lisa Wilson, Legal Assistant This firm is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. Any information received will be used for that purpose. If you have received a discharge in bankruptcy, this is not and should not be construed as an attempt to collect a debt. We are only proceeding against the real estate secured by the mortgage

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?