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)

Download PDF
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

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?