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.

Jamey L. Nastrom, et al v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank

October 15, 2012

JAMEY L. NASTROM, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING FILING OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 51)

On August 23, 2012, Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., individually and as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance LLC, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Deutsche National Bank Trust Company ("Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Jamey L. Nastrom and Kim Hewton-Nastrom ("Plaintiffs") failed to file any opposition to the motion. On September 26, 2012, the Court deemed the matter suitable for without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for September 28, 2012. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' ex parte application for an order allowing Plaintiffs to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' application is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, originally pro se, filed the instant action on November 22, 2011, challenging foreclosure proceedings on certain real property. Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., individually and as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance LLC, JPMorgan Chase Custody Services, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation filed a motion to dismiss on February 13, 2012. Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed a motion to dismiss on March 2, 2012. The Court granted the motions to dismiss and provided Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within sixty (60) days.

On August 6, 2012, Plaintiffs, proceeding through counsel, filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

On August 23, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC and noticed a hearing for September 28, 2012. Defendants electronically served the notice of motion and related motion papers on Plaintiffs' counsel.

On September 14, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement for a scheduling conference scheduled for September 24, 2012. The Joint Case Management Statement includes the following paragraph:

4. MOTIONS

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' FAC on August 23, 2012. The Motion to Dismiss hearing is scheduled for September 28, 2012. The Parties reserve the right to file any additional motions if necessary.

The Joint Case Management Statement contains an electronic signature for Plaintiffs' counsel, Myles Montgomery of United Law Center. Doc. 47.

On September 19, 2012, the Court issued a minute order taking the September 24, 2012, scheduling conference off calendar "[d]ue to the pending motion to dismiss." Doc. 49.

On September 26, 2012, the Court vacated the motion to dismiss hearing set for September 28, 2012, and took the motion to dismiss under submission. Doc. 50.

On October 10, 2012, Plaintiffs' counsel filed the instant ex parte application for an order to allow Plaintiffs to file a late opposition to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs' counsel, Myles Montgomery, asserts that the United Law Center "experienced a brief period of fragmentation with regard to how the hearing dates were received." Doc. 52, p. 2. He further asserts that he "failed to receive notice with regard to Defendants' motion ...


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.