Dutcher et al v. Matheson et al

Filing 95

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - granting 86 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiffs supplemental brief of no more than ten (10) pages within fourteen (14) days of this Order. denying 90 Motion to Strike ; denying 91 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 12/9/13. (ss)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

RICHARD DUTCHER and GWEN
DUTCHER, RICHARD FERGUSON and
MICHELLE FERGUSON; and CATHERINE
RICHARDS AHLERS, on their own behalf
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

vs.

STUART T. MATHESON; MATHESON,
MORTENSEN, OLSEN & JEPPSON, P.C.,
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.; BAC
HOME LOANS SERVICING LP; and BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Case No. 2:11-CV-666 TS

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Richard and Gwen Dutcher, Richard and
Michelle Ferguson, and Catherine Richards Ahlers’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Enlarge
Time to File Supplemental Brief on Jurisdiction.1 Also before the Court are Defendants Stuart T.

1

Docket No. 86.
1

Matheson; Matheson, Olsen and Jeppson, P.C.; ReconTrust Company, N.A.; BAC Home Loans
Servicing LP; Bank of America, N.A.’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motions to Strike.2
This matter came before the Court for a status conference on September 17, 2013. At that
status conference, the Court requested supplemental briefing on the issue of jurisdiction and the
Class Action Fairness Act. The parties were instructed to file their briefs no later than 5:00 pm
on October 4, 2013.
Shortly before the filing deadline, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting an additional day to
prepare their supplemental brief. Plaintiffs’ counsel cited unexpected complications in other
cases he was handling as grounds for the extension. Plaintiffs sought a stipulation from
Defendants and indicated that they would be willing to delay the deadline for all parties, thereby
ensuring a contemporary filing. Defendants refused to stipulate to such an extension. Five days
later, Plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief.
Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion and moved to strike Plaintiffs’
supplemental brief and the supplemental brief filed by the State of Utah. Defendants argue that
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge Time should be denied because Plaintiffs failed to establish good
cause for a five-day extension of the filing deadline. For this same reason, Defendants move the
Court to strike Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides that “[w]hen an act may or must be done
within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time.” Here, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs have met the good cause standard to justify a brief extension of the Court’s

2

Docket Nos. 90, 91.
2

deadline. For that reason, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion and deny Defendants’ Motion
to Strike Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief. That being said, the Court is persuaded that Defendants
were prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ late filing, as it allowed Plaintiffs the unfair advantage of
reviewing Defendants’ arguments prior to filing their brief. For this reason, the Court will grant
Defendants leave to file a reply brief. No further briefing will be permitted or considered.
The Court will also deny Defendants’ Motion to Strike the State of Utah’s brief.
Defendants argue that the State of Utah’s brief should be stricken because the State of Utah is not
a party to this case. While it is true that the State of Utah is not a party to this case, counsel for
the State of Utah appeared at the September 2013 status conference. At that conference, the
Court granted the State of Utah leave to file a supplemental brief. Counsel for Defendants did
not object to such a filing at that time. It also appears that the State of Utah similarly appeared
and submitted briefing on appeal.3 In light of this prior involvement, the Court will consider the
State of Utah’s supplemental brief.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge Time to File Supplemental Brief on
Jurisdiction (Docket No. 86) is GRANTED. Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiffs’
supplemental brief of no more than ten (10) pages within fourteen (14) days of this Order. It is
further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Strike (Docket Nos. 90 and 91) are DENIED.

3

See Docket No. 93, at 3.
3

DATED December 9, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

4