Filed: Jun. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2017
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC ("Rushmore"), and U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2013 SC3 Title Trust's (erroneously sued as U.S. Bank National Association, Truman Title 2013 SC3 Title Trust, Truman Capital Advisors, L.P.; hereinafter the "Loan Trust") Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to the motion, and therefore the
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC ("Rushmore"), and U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2013 SC3 Title Trust's (erroneously sued as U.S. Bank National Association, Truman Title 2013 SC3 Title Trust, Truman Capital Advisors, L.P.; hereinafter the "Loan Trust") Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to the motion, and therefore the ..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC ("Rushmore"), and U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2013 SC3 Title Trust's (erroneously sued as U.S. Bank National Association, Truman Title 2013 SC3 Title Trust, Truman Capital Advisors, L.P.; hereinafter the "Loan Trust") Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to the motion, and therefore the Court considers this an admission that the motion has merit. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' motion. Dkt. # 15.
Plaintiff made the choice to file and pursue this lawsuit. With her decision comes the responsibility to review the local rules, this Court's rules, the Standing Order, and federal court procedure generally.1 Though the Court offers some leeway to pro se plaintiffs, it expects these plaintiffs to abide by all rules and deadlines. That Plaintiff failed to monitor her spam folder during an active lawsuit that she initiated is not a justification or an excuse for a missed deadline. Similarly, that Plaintiff has a career and must "do many other things" is not unique; if Plaintiff wishes to pursue her claims in this forum, then she must do so in a responsible manner. Therefore, her untimely request for an extension of time to respond to Defendants' motion is DENIED.2
Plaintiff may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on March 23, 2017. Dkt. # 7. Because she is outside this 21-day deadline, she may only amend her complaint "with the opposing party's consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). It appears Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint but incorrectly noted the motion for June 2, 2017. Dkt. # 19. The Clerk renoted the motion for June 16, 2017. The Court RESERVES ruling on the motion to amend until the parties have had the chance to fully brief the issues.
