Lyall v. U S Bank National Assocation et al

Filing 162

ORDER granting Defendants Rushmore Loan Management Services and US Bank National Association's 156 Motion for Entry of Judgment; directing Clerk to enter judgment for Defendants Rushmore and US Bank, signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (SWT)

THE HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARD A. JONES

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

Case No: 17-00472-RAJ
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s letter requesting additional
extensions of time to respond. Dkt. # 158. In its prior Order, the Court extended
Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the pending motions to dismiss to February 16, 2018.
Dkt. # 154. On January 25, 2018, Defendants Rushmore Loan Management Services,

ORDER - 1

LLC (“Rushmore”) and U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee for
Truman 2013 SC3 Title Trust (“U.S. Bank”) moved the Court for an entry of Final
Judgment. Dkt. # 156. Plaintiff’s response to this motion was due on February 5, 2018.
On February 8—one day before the noting date—Plaintiff responded that she opposed the
motion and sought additional time to fully brief her opposition. Dkt. # 158.
Plaintiff states that she “has many motions to reply to, so many that it would be
impossible for an experienced attorney” to respond. Id. at 3. She reiterates that she has
been seeking help from outside attorneys. Id. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff
filed this lawsuit in March 2017, and has been admonished countless times that it is her
responsibility to prosecute the matter. The Court has extended great leniency toward
Plaintiff but nonetheless has been clear that Plaintiff is responsible for abiding by the
Federal Rules and this Court’s Local Rules.
For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff any further extensions of time to
respond. Because she has not filed an adequate response to the pending Motion for Entry
of Final Judgment, the Court GRANTS this motion. Dkt. # 156. The Court directs the
Clerk to enter Judgment for Defendants Rushmore and U.S. Bank.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2018.

A

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

ORDER - 2