Kucherov v. MTC Financial Inc et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle striking 46 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, 47 Kucherov's response, as well as trial date and corresponding deadlines. 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Noting Date 2/2/2018. Kucherov may file a response to the motion by 1/26/2018. (TG)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

LEONID KUCHEROV,

CASE NO. C17-5050 BHS

Plaintiff,
9
10

v.
MTC FINANCIAL, INC., et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION AND RESPONSE,
STRIKING TRIAL DATE AND
REMAINING DEADLINES, AND
RENOTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants CIT Bank N.A. (“CIT Bank”)

14

and OWB REO, LLC’s (“OWB REO”) motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 38),

15

Defendant MTC Financial, Inc.’s (“MTC”) motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff

16

Leonid Kucherov’s (“Kucherov”) motion for extension of time to complete discovery

17

(“Dkt. 46”). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition

18

to the motions and the remainder of the file and rules as follows:

19
20

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 25, 2017, Kucherov filed a complaint against MTC, CIT Bank, and

21

OWB REO (“Defendants”) asserting claims for breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure,

22

violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), infliction of emotional

ORDER - 1

1

distress, fraud, misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, declaratory relief to vacate the sale,

2

and violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Dkt. 3.

3

On May 30, 2017, the Court granted CIT Bank’s motion to dismiss in part and

4

denied it in part. Dkt. 22. In relevant part, the Court dismissed Kucherov’s claims for

5

slander of title and quiet title because the Court dismissed these claims with prejudice in

6

Kucherov’s first suit, see Kucherov v. MTC Financial, Inc., No 16-cv-5276BHS (W.D.

7

Wash. Sep. 19, 2016), and dismissed Kucherov’s claims to “vacate the [foreclosure] sale

8

based on allegations that OWB REO, LLC is not licensed as a contractor, failed to pay

9

taxes, or violated the Washington State ‘anti-flip statute.’” Dkt. 20.

10

On November 6, 2017, CIT Bank and OWB REO filed a motion for summary

11

judgment and noted it for consideration on December 22, 2017. Dkt. 38. On November

12

7, 2017, MTC filed a motion for summary judgment and also noted it for consideration

13

on December 22, 2017. Dkt. 41. On December 21, 2017, Defendants filed replies stating

14

that Kucherov failed to respond to either motion. Dkts. 44, 45.

15

On December 22, 2017, Kucherov filed a motion for extension of time to complete

16

discovery. Dkt. 46. On December 29, 2017, Kucherov filed a response to Defendants’

17

motions for summary judgment. Dkt. 47.

18
19
20
21

On January 3, 2017, Defendants responded to Kucherov’s motion for an extension
of time. Dkts. 48, 49.
On January 3 and 5, 2017, Defendants replied to Kucherov’s summary judgment
response. Dkts. 51, 52.

22

ORDER - 2

1

On January 10, 2017, CIT Bank and OWB REO’s attorney sent a letter to the

2

Court asserting that Kucherov has failed to participate in pretrial disclosures and seeking

3

relief from the impending pretrial deadlines. Dkt. 53.

4

II. DISCUSSION

5

“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(b)(4). Moreover, every court has the inherent authority “to

7

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for

8

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

9

In this case, the Court finds that good cause exists to strike the trial date, strike

10

Kucherov’s briefs, and renote Defendants’ motions. First, Kucherov filed an untimely

11

motion to extend discovery and an untimely response to Defendants’ motions for

12

summary judgment. These briefs also violate the page limits set forth in the local rules of

13

procedure, which the Court has explicitly directed Kucherov to observe. Dkt. 20 at 2 n.1.

14

Therefore, the Court strikes both Kucherov’s motion, Dkt. 46, and Kucherov’s response,

15

Dkt. 47.

16

Second, it appears that the issues in this case may be narrowed on summary

17

judgment. While the Court rarely strikes trial dates, the circumstances of this case

18

establish that the current trial date is unworkable. Therefore, the Court strikes the current

19

trial date and pending pretrial deadlines.

20

Finally, the Court will allow Kucherov one last attempt to properly respond to

21

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Thus, the motions will be renoted to allow

22

sufficient time for a response and replies. Because there are two motions, Kucherov is

ORDER - 3

1

technically allowed 48 pages. The Court, however, finds that Kucherov should be able to

2

adequately respond with a 36-page brief. The Court will disregard any brief that is not

3

timely filed and will disregard any argument beyond the first 36 pages of any response.

4

III. ORDER

5

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) the Clerk shall STRIKE Kucherov’s

6

motion, Dkt. 46, and Kucherov’s response, Dkt. 47, (2) the trial date and remaining

7

pretrial deadlines are STRICKEN, (3) the Clerk shall renote Defendants’ motions for

8

summary judgment for consideration on the Court’s February 2, 2018 calendar, and (4)

9

Kucherov may file a response to the motions no later than January 26, 2018, no longer

10

than 36 pages. Failure to file a response or otherwise comply with this order may result

11

in DISMISSAL with prejudice.

12

Dated this 11th day of January, 2018.

A

13
14

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4