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)

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