Ratcliffe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 25 & 26 Defts' Motions for Hearing or, in the alternative, Motions for Leave to File a response to Pltfs' supplemental authority. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/10/13. (ejb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE AND BRYSON CITY DIVISIONS

IN RE:

)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
)
RIVER ROCK CASES.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________________ )

Civil Case Nos. 1:11-cv-00179;
2:12-cv-00035; 2:12-cv-00036;
2:12-cv-00037; 2:12-cv-00038;
2:12-cv-00039; 2:12-cv-00040;
2:12-cv-00041; 2:12-cv-00042;
2:12-cv-00043; 2:12-cv-00044;
2:12-cv-00045; 2:12-cv-00046;
2:12-cv-00047; 2:12-cv-00048;
2:12-cv-00049; 2:12-cv-00050;
2:12-cv-00051; 2:12-cv-00052;
2:12-cv-00053; 2:12-cv-00054;
2:12-cv-00056; 2:12-cv-00057;
2:12-cv-00058; 2:12-cv-00059;
2:12-cv-00060; 2:12-cv-00061

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ request for
hearing or, in the alternative, to file a response to the Plaintiffs’
supplemental authority.
The Defendants Wells Fargo and Andrea Murphy request that the
Court convene a consolidated hearing on the pending motions to dismiss
or, in the alternative, that the parties be permitted to submit supplemental
briefing to address the applicability of the supplemental authority submitted
by the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs, however, only provided citations to the supplemental
authority, and did not present any independent argument.

Therefore,

Defendant’s’ request to be allowed independent argument is not warranted.
In its discretion, the Court denies the Defendants’ request.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ request for
hearing or, in the alternative, to file a response to the Plaintiffs’
supplemental authority is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: June 10, 2013

2