Ha v. US Bank National Association

Opinion

The Honorable Richard A. Jones 1

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9

WON YONG HA AND MONICA 11 YOUNG HA, NO. 2:19-cv-00492-RAJ

12 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION v. 14

15 US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

16 NOT INDIVIDUALLY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR BLUE WATER 17 INVESTMENT TRUST AND SELENE 18 FINANCE LP AND FORECLOSURE TRUSTEE, MICHELLE R. GHIDOTTI, 19 ESQ., 20 Defendants. 21

22 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to 23 file an amended complaint, or alternatively stay the case pending mediation. Dkt. # 15. 24 For the following reasons the Court GRANTS the motion. Dkt. # 15. 25 The Court previously set forth the factual background of this case and will not 26 1 (collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought this action against Defendants to prevent the 2 foreclosure of their property. Dkt. # 1. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 3 complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dkt. # 7. On 4 February 10, 2020, the Court granted Defendants motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 14. 5 Although the Court expressed skepticism regarding Plaintiffs ability to correct the 6 underlying deficiencies in their complaint, given Plaintiffs pro se status, the Court gave 7 Plaintiffs fourteen days to file an amended complaint. Id. On February 25, 2020 8 Plaintiffs requested additional time to file their amended complaint. Dkt. # 15. 9 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), “[w]hen an act may or must be 10 done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time 11 or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Additionally, because denying the 12 extension will result in dismissal of this action, the Court must consider also whether 13 dismissal is warranted. Specifically, a court must weigh five factors in determining 14 whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order: “(1) the public’s 15 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 16 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 17 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Malone v. U.S. 18 Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citation omitted). Dismissal is a 19 harsh penalty and may only be imposed in extreme circumstances. Hamilton Copper & 20 Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir.1990). 21 In this case, the Court finds that a less drastic sanction is available. The Court 22 will grant Plaintiffs a brief extension. It has now been over 45 days since the Court gave 23 Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. This is more than enough time for a 24 plaintiff, even one proceeding pro se, to prepare an amended pleading. See LCR 7(j) 25 (“Parties should not assume that [a motion for relief from a deadline] will be granted and 26 1 Accordingly, Plaintiffs must file their amended complaint by April 6, 2020. If 2 Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint within this timeframe, or if their complaint 3 does not state a cognizable claim for relief, the Court will dismiss this action with 4 prejudice, either sua sponte or by motion. Plaintiffs’ alternative motion for a stay 5 pending mediation is DENIED. 6 7 DATED this the 30th day of March, 2020.

8 A

9 10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26