Hoang et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 9 Motion for extension of time to respond to the 4 Motion to dismiss. Response due 7/31/2017; Motion to dismiss 4 is re-noted for 8/4/2017. Signed by Judge James L. Robart (PM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JERRY HOANG, et al.,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
EXTENSION OF TIME AND
RENOTING MOTION TO
CASE NO. C17-0874JLR
Before the court is Plaintiffs Jerry Hoang and Le Uyen Thi Hoang’s (collectively,
“the Hoangs”) motion for an extension of time (MFE (Dkt. # 9)) to respond to
Defendants Bank of America, N.A., and Federal National Mortgage Association’s
(collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss (MTD (Dkt. # 4)). The Hoangs request an
extension to July 31, 2017, to respond to the motion to dismiss. (MFE at 1-2.)
Defendants do not object to the Hoangs’ motion. (MFE Resp. (Dkt. # 10) at 1-2.)
Pursuant to the Local Civil Rules, however, Defendants propose that the court simply
ORDER - 1
re-note the motion to dismiss for August 4, 2017, making the Hoangs’ response due on
July 31, 2017. (Id. (citing Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3)).)
The court finds that the Hoangs have demonstrated good cause for an extension.
(See Hoang Decl. (Dkt. # 9-1) ¶¶ 4-9 (explaining that Mr. Hoang’s father died suddenly
on June 22, 2017; Mr. Hoang’s religion mandates a 30-day mourning period after the
death of a close family member; and during that mourning period, Mr. Hoang cannot
meaningfully assist in his case).) The court GRANTS the Hoangs’ motion for an
extension of time (Dkt. # 9), and DIRECTS the Clerk to re-note Defendants’ motion to
dismiss (Dkt. # 4) for August 4, 2017. The Hoangs’ response is now due on July 31,
2017.1 See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3).
Dated this 7th day of July, 2017.
JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge
The Hoangs appear to have violated Local Civil Rule 7 by failing to confer with
Defendants in an effort to obtain a stipulated extension. Cf. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(j)
(“A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance
of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline. . . If a true,
unforeseen emergency exists that prevents a party from meeting a deadline, and the emergency
arose too late to file a motion for relief from the deadline, the party should contact the adverse
party, meet and confer regarding an extension, and file a stipulation and proposed order with the
court.”); (see also MFE Resp. at 1-2 (indicating Defendants’ non-opposition to the extension)).
The court DIRECTS counsel for the Hoangs to carefully review Local Civil Rule 7 before
submitting any further filings to the court.
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?