Free et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas, et al

Filing 71

ORDER finding as moot 68 Deutsche Bank's Motion to Strike Untimely Response; re-noting 70 MOTION for Reconsideration re 69 Order on Motion to Substitute, Noting Date re 70 is now 12/30/2016; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

MARK D WALDRON, Chapter 7
Bankruptcy Trustee

CASE NO. C15-5139-RBL
ORDER

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY AMERICAS, et al.,

13
Defendants
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS, et al.,
Counterclaim Plaintiff/Third Party
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL PAUL FREE and HAK SUK
FREE; TIMBERLAND BANK; BOEING
EMPLOYEES’ CREDIT UNION; ALL
OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2066
TAYLOR
STREET, MILTON, WA 98354,
Counterclaim Defendants/Third Party
Defendants

22
23

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Deutsche Bank’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s

24 Untimely Response [Dtk. #68] and its Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt #70] of the Court’s

ORDER - 1

1 Order permitting the substitution of the bankruptcy trustee as the real party in interest [Dkt. #69].
2 The Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.
3

Deutsche Bank argues that the Plaintiffs were required to—and could not—establish that

4 their failure to name the real party in interest was the result of an “honest and understandable
5 mistake.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3); Feist v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 100 F.Supp.2d
6 273, 276 (E.D. Pa. 1999). The Court has already indicated its skepticism of any claim of such a
7 mistake.
8

Under Local Rule CR 7(h), no motion for reconsideration will be granted unless an

9 opposing party has been afforded the opportunity to file a response.
10

The court hereby REQUESTS that Trustee Waldron file a short (less than 6 pages)

11 Response to the Motion for Reconsideration. The Response should address the applicability of
12 Rule 17 and the “understandable mistake” standard to his substitution effort. It should also
13 address whether any creditors might be prejudiced if he is not permitted to substitute. The
14 Response should be filed by December 27, 2016. Deutsche Bank’s Reply, if any should be filed
15 December 30. The Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #70] is RE-NOTED for December 30,
16 2016.
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated this 21st day of December, 2016.

20

A

21

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

19

22
23
24

ORDER - 2