Hover et al v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting in part Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response; 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM : is Re-Noted for 9/29/2017. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' response is due no later than September 25, 2017. No further extension of time will be granted. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (TH) (cc: Plaintiffs)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 LYNN DALE HOVER and MILA JEAN HOVER, 9 Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 13 v. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION aka DITECH FINANCIAL LLC dba ditech.com, et al., 14 ) ) CASE NO. C17-0902 RSM ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF ) TIME TO FILE RESPONSE ) ) ) ) Defendants. 15 THIS MATTER COMES before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time 16 17 to respond to Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.’ pending motion to dismiss. Dkt. #23. 18 Defendant’s motion was noted for consideration on September 1, 2017, and therefore Plaintiffs’ 19 response was due no later than August 28, 2017. See Dkt. #7 and Local Civil Rule 7(d)(3). 20 Plaintiffs did not file the instant motion until August 31st. Plaintiffs assert that they need more 21 22 time to respond as they are pro se in this matter and need more time to review the motion and 23 research and formulate an adequate response. Dkt. #23. Accordingly, they ask for an extension 24 of time until September 30, 2017, to file a response. Id. Defendant opposes the motion, arguing 25 that the motion was untimely, it will increase the costs of litigation for Defendant, and Plaintiffs 26 offer no legitimate explanation for their request. Dkt. #24. 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 1 1 2 Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby ORDERS: 3 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to file a response to Defendant Northwest 4 Trustee Services, Inc.’s pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. #23) is GRANTED IN 5 PART. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #7) shall be RE-NOTED for 6 consideration on September 29, 2017. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ response is due no 7 8 later than September 25, 2017. No further extension of time will be granted. 9 2. Plaintiffs are further warned that they are expected to be familiar with the Court’s 10 Local Rules, particularly those related to the filing of motions and responses. Those 11 Local Rules can be found on the Court’s public internet site at 12 www.wawd.uscourts.gov. 13 14 3. Plaintiffs have not moved for an extension of time to respond to the pending motions 15 to dismiss filed by Defendants Fannie Mae, MERS, Nationstar Mortgager LLC, Bank 16 of America, N.A., and Ditech Financial. Dkts. #17, #19 and #22. Those motions are 17 ripe for review and no extension of time to respond to those motions has been 18 19 granted. 20 DATED this 15th day of September 2017. 21 A 22 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 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?