Lyall v. U S Bank National Assocation et al

Filing 48

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SEEK PERMISSION BEFORE FILING ANY ADDITIONAL MOTIONS 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,

)
)
Case No: 17-00472-RAJ
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
)
ASSOCIATION; TRUMAN TITLE 2013 ) ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SC3 TITLE TRUST; TRUMAN
) SEEK PERMISSION BEFORE FILING
CAPITAL ADVISORS, LP;
) ANY ADDITIONAL MOTIONS
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.
)
)
Between May 30, 2017 and June 12, 2017, Plaintiff has attempted, among
other things, to amend her complaint without seeking leave from the Court, filed
multiple notices regarding why she failed to respond to a motion to dismiss,
contradicted those notices when the Court took her at her word based upon those

ORDER - 1

notices, appealed the Court’s Order, filed additional TROs, filed amendments to
pleadings within hours of filing the initial versions, filed a TRO on this Court’s
docket when the TRO was meant for the Court of Appeals, and sought an
emergency recusal of the undersigned Judge. See, generally, Dkt. ## 16-44.
Plaintiff’s irresponsible pleading tactics have caused great inefficiencies within the
undersigned’s chambers, and allowing Plaintiff to continue down this path
threatens to derail this litigation. For these reasons, the Court exercises its
discretion to preclude Plaintiff from filing any additional motions without prior
approval.
Plaintiff may not file any future motions without first seeking permission
from the Court. In seeking permission, Plaintiff must explain to the Court the type
of motion she plans to file, why she needs to file the motion, and whether she has
met and conferred with opposing counsel regarding the motion in compliance with
this Court’s Standing Order (see Dkt. # 10) and this district’s Local Rules.
Plaintiff must offer the Court more than mere conclusions or vague statements
when seeking permission to file future motions. Plaintiff is warned that the Court
expects her to meet and confer with opposing counsel; failure to do so may result
in the Court denying her permission to file additional motions.
Moreover, the Court will not accept amended pleadings filed within hours of the
initial pleading. This means that Plaintiff must diligently review and edit her initial
drafts. As stated above, Plaintiff must seek permission to file an amendment to any
pleadings, and she is warned that the Court will deny her leave to file amendments if the
proposed changes could have been incorporated in her initial pleading. If the Court
grants Plaintiff permission to file an amendment, then Plaintiff is responsible for ensuring
that the initial filing is terminated.

ORDER - 2

To avoid any immediate confusion, the Court clarifies its expectations with regard
to the currently pending motions:
1. Plaintiff has permission to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss in docket
number 34, but must do so within the deadline set by the Local Rules, which is
no later than Monday, June 26, 2017. See W.D. Wash. Local Rules LCR 7(d).
2. Plaintiff has permission to respond to Defendants’ motion in docket number
37, but must do so within the deadline set by the Local Rules, which is no later
than Monday, June 19, 2017. See W.D. Wash. Local Rules LCR 7(d).

Dated this 14th day of June, 2017.

A
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

ORDER - 3