Boilermakers National Annuity Trust Fund v. WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates et al

Filing 154

ORDER denying (153) Stipulated Motion in case 2:09-cv-00037-MJP: The Court DENIES the parties' motion without prejudice to file a renewed motion that cures the defects noted in the Order, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RK)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. NEW ORLEANS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WAMU MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AR1, et al., Defendants.

HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE BOILERMAKERS NATIONAL ANNUITY TRUST FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, NO. 2:09-cv-00037MJP ORDER DENYING PARTIES' STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

No. 2:09-cv-00134 MJP

This matter comes before the Court on the parties' stipulated motion to modify the briefing schedule on Defendants' motions to dismiss and to withdraw Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the consolidated complaint. (Dkt. No. 153.) Having reviewed the parties' submission, the Court finds and orders as follows:
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES (NO. 2:09-CV-0037-MJP) - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

1. The motion sets forth deadlines that are incompatible with the diligent prosecution of this case. This matter has been pending for over a year and motions to dismiss have yet to come ripe. Nevertheless, the parties propose to extend the Court's consideration of Defendants' motions by several months without setting forth any facts to enable the Court to make a finding of good cause. 2. Even if the Court were to accept that certain extensions are appropriate, the deadlines set forth do not appear to be tailored to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs have not explained why they need two weeks after the Court's order on the motions for appointment in Doral to file a motion to consolidate. Nor have they explained why they would need an additional thirty days after any consolidation to file a proposed amended complaint. If Plaintiffs intend to proceed under the assumption that Boilermakers and Doral will be consolidated, they must demonstrate an ability to move both cases forward in a timely manner. The Court therefore DENIES the parties' motion without prejudice to file a renewed motion that cures the defects noted above. The Clerk shall transmit a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. Dated this 8th day of March, 2010.

Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge

A

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES (NO. 2:09-CV-0037-MJP) - 2