United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
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) and
Defendant MTC Financial, Inc.'s (“MTC”)
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 41). The Court has
considered the pleadings filed in support of and in
opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and
grants the motions for the reasons stated herein.
lawsuit stems from the foreclosure on Plaintiff Leonid
Kucherov's (“Kucherov”) property on May 20,
2016. On January 25, 2017, Plaintiff Leonid Kucherov
(“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 an untimely motion for
extension of time to complete discovery. Dkt. 46. On December
29, 2017, Kucherov filed an untimely response to
Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Dkt. 47.
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.
January 11, 2017, the Court entered an order striking
Kucherov's response to the pending summary judgment
motions for severe violations of the Court's rules on
page limits, which the Court had explicitly directed Kucherov
to observe on previous occasions. Dkt. 54. This is was not
the first time the Court has dealt with Plaintiff's
failure to comply with court rules and orders on related or
identical claims. See Kucherov v. MTC Financial,
Inc., No 16-cv-5276BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep. 19, 2016). In
its order, the Court also afforded Kucherov the opportunity
to file a 36-page brief no later than January 26, 2018, with
the explicit warning that it would “disregard any brief
that is not timely filed and will disregard any argument
beyond the first 36 pages of any response.” Dkt. 54 at
January 26 deadline passed without any response from
Kucherov. On January 30, 2018, CIT Bank and OWB REO filed
replies noting that Kucherov had again failed to file a
response by the ordered deadline. Dkt. 57. On January 31,
2018, MTC did the same. Dkt. 56.
February 1, 2018, Kucherov filed a 36-page response to the
motions for summary judgment, with attached declarations.
Dkt. 57. Kucherov also filed a motion to strike evidence
submitted by Defendants in support of their motions for
summary judgment. Dkt. 58.
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).
previous order striking Kucherov's severely overlength
and untimely response, the Court offered Kucherov another
chance to file a response and explicitly informed Kucherov
that it would disregard any response filed later than January
26, 2018. Dkt. 54 at 4. Nonetheless, Kucherov failed to
comply with the Court's order. Kucherov has failed to
provide good cause for his repeated failure to timely oppose
Defendants' motions for summary judgment. As a result, it
would be appropriate for the Court to reject the response, as