Lyall v. U S Bank National Assocation et al

Filing 154

ORDER re Plaintiff's 149 Letter and 150 Letter. The Court permits Plaintiff to file one brief in opposition not to exceed forty-eight pages, addressing all pending motions to dismiss. In the alternative, Plaintiff may respond separately to each motion but will be limited to the twenty-four page limit. Plaintiff's first response to Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 131 ) is due January 16, 2018. The Court will grant Plaintiff an extension to respond to all pending moti ons to dismiss. Plaintiff may file her response(s) no later than Monday, February 12, 2018. Defendants' replies must be filed no later than Friday, February 16, 2018. The Court directs the Clerk to re-note the pending motions for February 16, 20 18. Plaintiff's response(s) must abide by the page limits set forth above. The Court will not consider pages beyond these limits. The Court DENIES these requests to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to pursue discovery and motion practice outside the normal course of litigation. Signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARD A. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
MARTA D. LYALL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
)
ASSOCIATION; TRUMAN TITLE 2013 )
SC3 TITLE TRUST; TRUMAN
)
CAPITAL ADVISORS, LP;
)
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT )
SERVICES, LLC; BANK OF AMERICA, )
N.A.; DITECH HOME LOAN
)
SERVICING; CWABS MASTER
)
TRUST, REVOLVING HOME EQUITY )
LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES,
)
SERIES 2004-"O"; CARNEGIE
)
MELLON UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY )
OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON
)
STATE DEPARTMENT OF
)
COMMERCE; DISPUTE RESOLUTION )
CENTER OF KING COUNTY; and
)
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-100,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No: 17-00472-RAJ
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s recent letters regarding the
pending motions to dismiss. Dkt. ## 149, 150. Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of
Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. Dkt. ## 130, 131, 136, 144, 147. She seeks
permission to file a single response, and she states that she will need twenty-one pages

ORDER - 1

per Defendant in her combined response. In addition, Plaintiff requests an extension of
time to respond to the pending motions to dismiss.
Local Rule 7(e)(3) limits briefs in opposition to twenty-four pages. However, the
Court permits Plaintiff to file one brief in opposition not to exceed forty-eight pages,
addressing all pending motions to dismiss. In the alternative, Plaintiff may respond
separately to each motion but will be limited to the twenty-four page limit set forth in the
Local Rules.
Plaintiff’s first response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 131) is due
January 16, 2018. The Court will grant Plaintiff an extension to respond to all pending
motions to dismiss. Plaintiff may file her response(s) no later than Monday, February 12,
2018. Defendants’ replies must be filed no later than Friday, February 16, 2018. The
Court directs the Clerk to re-note the pending motions for February 16, 2018. Plaintiff’s
response(s) must abide by the page limits set forth above. The Court will not consider
pages beyond these limits.
The Court acknowledges receipt of Plaintiff’s additional requests, including her
wish to reinstate certain Defendants and file pre-discovery motions. The Court DENIES
these requests to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to pursue discovery and motion
practice outside the normal course of litigation. The Court will not make exceptions to
the normal procedures at this time.
Plaintiff may pursue discovery and file discovery-related motions in the normal
course of litigation. If Plaintiff wishes to file discovery-related motions, such as motions
to compel, against current Defendants, she may do so. Plaintiff is warned that should she
file contemporaneous motions—including duplicate motions with “corrections” as
Plaintiff has done in the past—or litigate in a way that is detrimental to the case or this

ORDER - 2

Court’s docket 1, the Court may consider limiting Plaintiff’s ability to pursue discovery.
Dated this 10th day of January, 2018.

A
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

1

The Court will remind Plaintiff that it has a low tolerance for violations of the Local Rules and
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ORDER - 3