Schroeder et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying plaintiffs' 12 Motion to Sever; dismissing defendants Corporate John Does 1-10 and Guild Mortgage Company signed by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)

Download PDF
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 11 MICHAEL E. SCHROEDER, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 v. Case No. 16-1561-RAJ ORDER NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Michael E. Schroeder and 18 Marguerite E. Schroeder’s Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and Motion to 19 Sever. Dkt. # 12. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the motion and 20 DISMISSES Defendant Guild Mortgage and Defendants Corporate John Does 1-10. 21 Plaintiffs did not timely provide proof that proper service of the summons and 22 complaint in this matter had been made on Defendant Guild Mortgage Company, as 23 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiffs also failed to identify and 24 serve the ten “Doe” Defendants as required by the Court’s standing order. Accordingly, 25 the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why Defendants Guild Mortgage Company 26 (“Guild Mortgage”) and Corporate John Does 1-10 should not be dismissed without 27 prejudice for failure to prosecute. Dkt. # 9. Now, Plaintiffs move to sever their claims 28 ORDER – 1 1 2 3 against Guild Mortgage and contend that dismissal of the Doe Defendants would be unwarranted because discovery is necessary to obtain their identities. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Court DISMISSES Guild Mortgage. Plaintiffs contend that they have reached an agreement with Guild Mortgage’s in-house counsel to sever their claims against Guild Mortgage. Plaintiffs, however, provide no evidence of this purported agreement. Counsel for Plaintiffs represents that he has been “delayed in drafting the stipulated order for review by counsel for Guild Mortgage due to exigent and ongoing circumstances related to another legal matter.” Motion at 3. Plaintiffs have had ample time since filing this motion to provide evidence of this stipulation, yet have not done so. The Court DISMISSES Defendants Corporate John Does 1-10. Plaintiffs contend that discovery is necessary to obtain the identities of these Defendants. But Plaintiffs did not timely request expedited discovery. Instead, they allowed the deadline for identifying and serving Doe Defendants to pass and then requested that early discovery is warranted. They cite one case where expedited discovery was warranted, but there, the plaintiff requested discovery within days of filing the complaint. Microsoft Corp. v. Does, No. C15-0663-RSM, 2015 WL 12930822 (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2015)). Moreover, the court in that case specified that the following showing is necessary to obtain expedited discovery of Doe defendants: [C]ourts examine whether the plaintiff (1) identifies the John Doe defendant with sufficient specificity that the Court can determine that the defendant is a real person who can be sued in federal court, (2) recounts the steps taken to locate and identify the defendant, (3) demonstrates that the action can withstand a motion to dismiss, and (4) proves that the discovery is likely to lead to identifying information that will permit service of process. Id. at *2. Plaintiffs have not made this showing. 26 27 28 ORDER – 2 1 2 For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Sever (Dkt. # 12) and DISMISSES Defendants Guild Mortgage and Corporate John Does 1-10. 3 4 DATED this 29th day of June, 2017. 5 A 6 7 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER – 3

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?