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)

Download PDF
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

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?