Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kucherov v. MTC Financial Inc

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

March 12, 2018

LEONID KUCHEROV, Plaintiff,
v.
MTC FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge.

         This 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This 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.

         On May 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.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         On 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 4.

         The 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.

         On 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.

         II. DISCUSSION

         “A 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).

         In its 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.