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)

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