Schaub et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' 16 Motion for Extension of Time signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 8 9 10 11 PETER SCHAUB, an individual; and CLOUDY SKIES PROPERTIES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 17-0726RSM ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., Defendants. 12 13 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Consideration of 14 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Consolidation of Motions to Dismiss and Remand, and Extension 15 of Time to Respond. Dkt. #16. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART 16 and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion. 17 18 19 Plaintiffs served Defendants with the instant action on or about April 12, 2017, which would have been filed in King County Superior Court. Dkt. #1. Defendants then removed the action to this Court. Id. On May 31, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, properly noting it for consideration on the Court’s motion calendar on June 23, 2017. Dkt. #11 and LCR 7(d)(3). 20 21 22 On June 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand, noting it for consideration on the Court’s calendar on June 30, 2017. Dkt. #12. Plaintiffs then filed an untimely Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on June 23, 2017. Dkt. #15 and LCR 7(d)(3). At the same time, Plaintiffs filed ORDER - 1 1 the instant motion. Dkt. #16. Defendants have filed timely responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion to 2 Remand, but no Reply in support of the motion has been filed. Dkts. #14 and #18. All pending 3 motions are now ripe for review. 4 In the instant motion for extension of time, Plaintiff asks the Court to consider Defendants’ 5 Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand at the same time because they contain 6 similar issues, but seek contradictory relief. Dkt. #16 at 2. This is the Court’s typical practice 7 when pending motions are related; thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request and will consider 8 9 10 the motions simultaneously. Plaintiffs further ask the Court to grant an extension of time to respond to the motions as if they were both noted for consideration on June 30, 2017. Id. at 3. Although Plaintiffs provide no explanation for their untimely response to Defendants’ motion in violation of the Court’s Local 11 12 13 14 15 Rules, the Court will consider the response as if it had been timely filed. However, to the extent this motion seeks an extension of time to file a Reply in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, such request is DENIED. Any such Reply was due no later than June 30, 2017, but no brief was filed. Plaintiffs provide no explanation as to why any further extension should be granted. 16 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #16) is GRANTED IN PART 17 and DENIED IN PART as discussed above. The Court will consider the pending motions to 18 dismiss and for remand on the briefing already filed with the Court. 19 Dated this 11 day of July, 2017. 20 A 21 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 ORDER - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?