Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02039/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02039-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

07cv2039

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CODY NICHOLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY, as Trustee for Morgan

Stanley Loan Trust 2006-HE4, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv2039-L(NLS)

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

DATE AND GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART JOINT

MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On December 6, 2007 the parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue Hearing on Order to

Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction. For reasons which follow, the motion is GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

On November 21, 2007 the court issued a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to

Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction. Among other things, the order restrained Defendants

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Loan Trust 2006-HE4

(“Deutsche Bank”), and Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC (“Decision One”) and their

servicers, agents, assigns, employees, officers, attorneys, and representatives from conducting a

foreclosure sale of Plaintiff’s residence, and set a hearing on order to show cause (“OSC”) why a

preliminary injunction should not issue for December 10, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.. The order also set

a briefing schedule for the hearing, ordering Defendants to respond to the OSC no later than

Case 3:07-cv-02039-L-NLS Document 13 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 07cv2039

November 28, 2007 and Plaintiff to reply no later than December 4, 2007. As ordered, Plaintiff

served Defendants with the order and its moving papers by overnight mail on November 21,

2007. 

Defendants have not responded to the OSC as ordered, but instead filed the instant joint

motion. Although the joint motion is styled as a motion to continue the December 10 hearing,

Defendants also request an extension of time to file their respective responses to the OSC from

November 28, 2007 to December 31, 2007. Under the proposed briefing schedule, Plaintiff’s

reply would be due on January 7, 2008 and the hearing would be continued to January 14, 2008. 

Plaintiff stipulated to the request.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides district courts with discretion to grant

extensions of time. This is so even when the request is made after the expiration of the time

period to be extended, provided the request is made by motion and the delay was caused by

excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). 

Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates established a balancing

test to determine whether an untimely filing is due to excusable neglect. 507 U.S. 380, 395

(1993); Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The determination

whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four factors:

(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its

potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including

whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the

moving party’s conduct was in good faith.

Pincay, 389 F.3d at 855 (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395). The district court’s discretion in this

regard is broad. See id. at 859. 

Counsel for Deutsche Bank was retained on November 28, 2007, the date when the

response to the OSC was due. Furthermore, its client is still in the process of gathering the

requisite documents necessary to prepare the response. The court therefore finds that Deutsche

Bank’s request meets the Rule 6(b)(1)(B) excusable neglect standard and its request to extend

the time to file a response is GRANTED.

/ / / / /

Case 3:07-cv-02039-L-NLS Document 13 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 07cv2039

Although Decision One joined in the motion, it provided no explanation why it needs an

extension of time to respond. On November 26, 2007, Decision One, represented by counsel,

filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly, the court finds that Decision One has not

met the excusable neglect standard and its request to extend the time to file a response is 

DENIED.

For the foregoing reasons, the request to extend the time for Plaintiff’s reply is

GRANTED and the currently set hearing date of December 10, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. is

CONTINUED. The request to continue the hearing date to January 14, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. is

DENIED, however, because the proposed date is not available on the court’s calendar.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Joint Motion to Continue Hearing on Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary

Injunction is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth above.

2. The Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction is CONTINUED from December

10, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. to January 22, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. 

3. No later than December 31, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. Defendant Deutsche Bank shall file and

serve by facsimile or personal service a memorandum of points and authorities no longer than

fifteen (15) pages and supporting evidence, if any, to show cause why a preliminary injunction

should not issue.

4. No later than January 7, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. Plaintiff shall file and serve by facsimile or

personal service a responsive memorandum of points and authorities no longer than fifteen (15)

pages and supporting evidence, if any. 

5. The temporary restraining order granted on November 21, 2007 shall remain in full

force and effect until the continued order to show cause hearing. The Rule 65(c) security for the

temporary restraining order shall remain as provided in the November 21, 2007 order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 6, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02039-L-NLS Document 13 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 07cv2039

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-02039-L-NLS Document 13 Filed 12/06/07 Page 4 of 4