United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND RESPONSE,
STRIKING TRIAL DATE AND REMAINING DEADLINES, AND RENOTING
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendants CIT Bank N.A.
(“CIT Bank”) and OWB REO, LLC's (“OWB
REO”) motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 38), Defendant
MTC Financial, Inc.'s (“MTC”) motion for
summary judgment, and Plaintiff Leonid Kucherov's
(“Kucherov”) motion for extension of time to
complete discovery (“Dkt. 46”). The Court has
considered the pleadings filed in support of and in
opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and
rules as follows:
January 25, 2017, Kucherov filed a complaint against MTC, CIT
Bank, and OWB REO (“Defendants”) asserting claims
for breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, violation of
the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”),
infliction of emotional distress, fraud, misrepresentation,
civil conspiracy, declaratory relief to vacate the sale, and
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”). Dkt. 3.
30, 2017, the Court granted CIT Bank's motion to dismiss
in part and denied it in part. Dkt. 22. In relevant part, the
Court dismissed Kucherov's claims for slander of title
and quiet title because the Court dismissed these claims with
prejudice in Kucherov's first suit, see Kucherov v.
MTC Financial, Inc., No 16-cv-5276BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep.
19, 2016), and dismissed Kucherov's claims to
“vacate the [foreclosure] sale based on allegations
that OWB REO, LLC is not licensed as a contractor, failed to
pay taxes, or violated the Washington State ‘anti-flip
statute.'” Dkt. 20.
November 6, 2017, CIT Bank and OWB REO filed a motion for
summary judgment and noted it for consideration on December
22, 2017. Dkt. 38. On November 7, 2017, MTC filed a motion
for summary judgment and also noted it for consideration on
December 22, 2017. Dkt. 41. On December 21, 2017, Defendants
filed replies stating that Kucherov failed to respond to
either motion. Dkts. 44, 45.
December 22, 2017, Kucherov filed a motion for extension of
time to complete discovery. Dkt. 46. On December 29, 2017,
Kucherov filed a response to Defendants' motions for
summary judgment. Dkt. 47.
January 3, 2017, Defendants responded to Kucherov's
motion for an extension of time. Dkts. 48, 49.
January 3 and 5, 2017, Defendants replied to Kucherov's
summary judgment response. Dkts. 51, 52.
January 10, 2017, CIT Bank and OWB REO's attorney sent a
letter to the Court asserting that Kucherov has failed to
participate in pretrial disclosures and seeking relief from
the impending pretrial deadlines. Dkt. 53.
schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the
judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 16(b)(4).
Moreover, every court has the inherent authority “to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.
248, 254 (1936).
case, the Court finds that good cause exists to strike the
trial date, strike Kucherov's briefs, and renote
Defendants' motions. First, Kucherov filed an untimely
motion to extend discovery and an untimely response to
Defendants' motions for summary judgment. These briefs
also violate the page limits set forth in the local rules of
procedure, which the Court has explicitly directed Kucherov
to observe. Dkt. 20 at 2 n.1. Therefore, the Court strikes
both Kucherov's motion, Dkt. 46, and Kucherov's
response, Dkt. 47.
it appears that the issues in this case may be narrowed on
summary judgment. While the Court rarely strikes trial dates,
the circumstances of this case establish that the current
trial date is unworkable. Therefore, the ...