De Botton v. Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 26, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00223
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 RAYMOND DE BOTTON, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00223-RSL 9 Plaintiff, v. 10

11 QUALITY LOAN SERVICES ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, et 12 al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief Pursuant to 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).” Dkt. # 24. Under that Rule: 17 18 a trial court may order a continuance on a motion for summary judgment if the party requesting a continuance submits affidavits showing that, without 19 Rule 56 assistance, it cannot present facts necessary to justify its claims. The 20 requesting party must show: (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific 21 facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment. Cal. on 22 behalf of Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 23 779 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to comply with these requirements “is a proper ground for denying discovery and proceeding to summary judgment.” Id. 24 (quoting Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th 25 Cir. 1986)). 26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 1 2 Fam. Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 3 2008). Plaintiff has provided an affidavit showing that, prior to the filing of the motion for 4 5 summary judgment, plaintiff served notices of deposition seeking testimony regarding the 6 existence of the underlying loan, the alleged default, how the foreclosure proceeds were 7 distributed, whether the trustee was qualified to act, whether the trustee complied with its 8 statutory obligations, the existence of an attorney-client relationship between defendants, 9 10 and Quality Loan Services Corporation’s relationship with various third parties. Dkt. # 24- 11 1 at 14-23. Most of these facts are clearly at issue in the pending summary judgment 12 motion, and defendants selected documents and information in their possession to their 13 narrative. Plaintiff, however, has not had the opportunity to inquire whether other, less 14 15 supportive documents exist and/or to test defendants’ assertions regarding statutory 16 compliance and immunities. 17

18 For all of the foregoing reasons, the motion to continue is GRANTED. The parties 19 have served their initial disclosures, and defendants produced documents on March 16, 20 21 2023, in support of their pending motion for summary judgment. The parties shall schedule 22 the noticed depositions within the next two weeks (if they have not already occurred). 23 Plaintiff will then be given an opportunity to serve follow-up discovery before his response 24 to the pending motion is due. 25 26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to renote Defendants’ Amended Motion for 2 Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 17) for consideration on July 21, 2023. 3 4 Dated this 26th day of April, 2023. 5

6 7 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO