Lyall v. U S Bank National Assocation et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting defendants' 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; plaintiff's request for an extension of time to respond to defendants' motion is denied; court reserves ruling on the motion to amend until the parties have had the chance to fully brief the issues signed by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)

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,
)
)

Case No: 17-00472-RAJ
ORDER

Defendants.
)
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Rushmore Loan Management
Services, LLC (“Rushmore”), and U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee
for Truman 2013 SC3 Title Trust’s (erroneously sued as U.S. Bank National Association,
Truman Title 2013 SC3 Title Trust, Truman Capital Advisors, L.P.; hereinafter the “Loan

ORDER - 1

Trust”) Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to
the motion, and therefore the Court considers this an admission that the motion has merit.
Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’
motion. Dkt. # 15.
Plaintiff made the choice to file and pursue this lawsuit. With her decision comes
the responsibility to review the local rules, this Court’s rules, the Standing Order, and
federal court procedure generally. 1 Though the Court offers some leeway to pro se
plaintiffs, it expects these plaintiffs to abide by all rules and deadlines. That Plaintiff
failed to monitor her spam folder during an active lawsuit that she initiated is not a
justification or an excuse for a missed deadline. Similarly, that Plaintiff has a career and
must “do many other things” is not unique; if Plaintiff wishes to pursue her claims in this
forum, then she must do so in a responsible manner. Therefore, her untimely request for
an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 2
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
1

Plaintiff may find the Court’s website helpful in this regard:
http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se
2

The Court further reminds the parties that they must meet and confer prior to filing any future
motions. This rule is clearly stated in the Court’s Standing Order; the Court construes this rule
strictly and may exercise its discretion to strike motions that are filed in violation of this
requirement.

ORDER - 2

Plaintiff may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after
service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on March 23,
2017. Dkt. # 7. Because she is outside this 21-day deadline, she may only amend her
complaint “with the opposing party’s consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). It appears Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint but incorrectly noted
the motion for June 2, 2017. Dkt. # 19. The Clerk renoted the motion for June 16, 2017.
The Court RESERVES ruling on the motion to amend until the parties have had the
chance to fully brief the issues.
Dated this 6th day of June, 2017.

A
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

ORDER - 3