PMT NPL Financing 2015-1 v. Lee et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying defendant's 8 Motion for relief from deadline directing defendant to file state court complaint; parties directed to engage in Rule 26(f) conference by noon on 6/5/17; defendant Lee is directed to immediately file a copy of the state court complaint or otherwise respond by 6/9/17 by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc Lee

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

PMT NPL FINANCING 2015-1,

Case No. C17-535 RSM

8
9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS C. LEE, et al.,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
DEADLINE AND DIRECTING
DEFENDANT TO FILE STATE COURT
COMPLAINT

Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Thomas C. Lee’s “Notice and

14
15

Request for Temporary Extension of Time for Compliance with FRCP 26(f) Conference.” Dkt.

16

#8. The Court interprets Mr. Lee’s Motion as a request for relief from deadline. See LCR 7(j).

17

The Court notes two procedural errors with this Motion. First, Mr. Lee’s Motion is titled

18

“Plaintiff’s Notice and Request for Temporary Extension of Time for Compliance with FRCP

19
20
21

26(f) Conference,” but is filed by Defendant Thomas C. Lee. Dkt. #8 at 1. Second, Mr. Lee
has failed to note the Motion for consideration by the Court as required under Local Rule 7(d).

22

Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, “[a] motion for relief from a deadline should,

23

whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on

24

the motion prior to the deadline.” LCR 7(j). “Parties should not assume that the motion will be

25
26

granted and must comply with the existing deadline unless the court orders otherwise.” Id.

27

The Court finds that Mr. Lee’s Motion fails to set forth any specific grounds for his

28

request for relief, and that it was improperly filed one day after the deadline for the Rule 26(f)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINE AND DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO
FILE STATE COURT COMPLAINT - 1

1
2
3
4

Conference had passed. Accordingly, the Court will deny this request. The parties are directed
to immediately engage in the required Rule 26(f) Conference.
The Court also notes that Mr. Lee has failed to file a copy of the State Court Complaint
as required in this matter despite a notice to Mr. Lee from the Court on May 18, 2017. See Dkt.

5
6

#7. Instead of filing the Complaint, Mr. Lee has filed “Eviction Summons” that discuss the

7

possibility of a Complaint being filed by Plaintiff in the future. Dkt. #1-1. The Court directs

8

Mr. Lee to immediately file a copy of the State Court Complaint, if it exists, or otherwise

9

respond to the Court with an explanation for his failure to file the Complaint.

10

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby

11
12
13
14
15
16

finds and ORDERS that:
(1) Defendant Thomas C. Lee’s “Notice and Request for Temporary Extension of Time
for Compliance with FRCP 26(f) Conference” (Dkt. #8) is DENIED.
(2) The Parties are directed to immediately engage in the required Rule 26(f)
Conference. This conference should occur no later than noon on June 5, 2017, to

17
18
19
20
21

allow the parties time to meet the initial disclosure deadline set forth in the Court’s
May 1, 2017, Order.
(3) Defendant Lee is directed to immediately file a copy of the State Court Complaint,
if it exists, or otherwise respond to the Court with an explanation for his failure to

22
23
24
25
26
27

file the Complaint. This must be filed with the Court no later than June 9, 2017.
DATED this 2nd day of June 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINE AND DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO
FILE STATE COURT COMPLAINT - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINE AND DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO
FILE STATE COURT COMPLAINT - 3