Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00578/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00578-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

Leave of court was required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), because

other defendants had answered. (Docs. 8, 9).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE MORRISETTE, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0578-WS-B

 )

NOVASTAR HOME MORTGAGE, INC.,)

 et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant NovaStar Home

Mortgage, Inc. (“NovaStar”) for an extension of time to respond to the complaint. (Doc.

50). The motion is unopposed by the plaintiffs. (Id.). The motion seeks an extension to

April 2, 2007 within which to answer.

The complaint was filed on September 20, 2006 and served on NovaStar five days

later. (Docs. 1, 6). NovaStar’s response to the complaint was thus due on October 16,

2006. On that date, NovaStar filed an unopposed motion for a four-week extension of

time, to November 13, 2006, based on the representation that “[i]t is hoped that this

extension will allow some opportunity to resolve this action before additional fees, costs,

and expenses are incurred.” (Doc. 7). Even though Magistrate Judge Bivins did not rule

on the motion, NovaStar failed to respond to the complaint. 

On October 30, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended

complaint. (Doc. 17).1

 NovaStar did not respond to this motion but, two weeks after it

was filed, moved for an extension of time to respond to the complaint (or amended

complaint, should leave to amend be granted) until 20 days after such ruling. (Doc. 18). 

Case 1:06-cv-00578-WS-B Document 53 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 3
2

On December 18, 2006, the action had been transferred from Judge Bivins due to

the parties’ failure to consent to her exercise of jurisdiction. (Doc. 32). 

-2-

NovaStar sought this extension even though it did not oppose the amendment and even

though it had been served with the amended complaint on October 30. Judge Bivins

granted NovaStar’s motion, (Doc. 21), and the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was

deemed granted as of November 21, 2006, due to the defendants’ failure to file any

objection. (Id.). NovaStar’s response was thus due on December 11, 2006. 

On December 8, 2006, NovaStar filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 27). Its only

ground for dismissal of the entire amended complaint against it was the amended

complaint’s usage in the body (but not the style) of the name “NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.,”

an apparently separate entity. This error had been known to NovaStar since it was served

with the original complaint on September 25, and it was obvious both from the style of

the original complaint and the summons that the intended defendant was NovaStar Home

Mortgage, Inc. (Doc. 1 at 1; Doc. 2 at 1). On December 27, 2006, the plaintiff filed a

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, the granting of which would moot

NovaStar’s motion to dismiss by correcting its name and by eliminating the claims

against it to which the motion to dismiss was addressed. (Doc. 34). NovaStar did not

deny that this would be the result of the second amended complaint, but it nevertheless

opposed the amendment unless the Court were to declare the omitted claims dismissed

with prejudice. (Doc. 38). On February 13, 2006, the Court granted the motion for leave

to amend and denied the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 46).2

 NovaStar’s responsive pleading

was thus due on February 27, 2006. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

NovaStar did not file a responsive pleading or any other document by this

deadline. Instead, two days after the deadline passed, NovaStar filed the pending motion,

seeking yet another month within which to respond. NovaStar justifies its motion with

the familiar language that “[i]t is hoped that this extension will allow some opportunity to

resolve this action before additional fees, costs, and expenses are incurred.” (Doc. 50).

Case 1:06-cv-00578-WS-B Document 53 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Nor does NovaStar’s history in this lawsuit — failing to file a responsive pleading

despite receiving no such permission from Judge Bivins; seeking six weeks to respond to

a first amended complaint it did not oppose; resisting a proposed second amended

complaint that would eliminate all claims it challenged; and filing the pending motion

after its deadline for responding had expired — instill confidence in its intention to

advance the resolution of this litigation. 

-3-

It has now been more than five months since NovaStar was served with the

complaint. While the complaint has changed somewhat from its original iteration, the

two counts still alleged against NovaStar appear unaltered from September 2006. Since

the only ground NovaStar advanced for dismissing these two claims was the specious one

concerning reference to a similarly named entity, NovaStar has known for that entire fivemonth period that it must submit an answer to these allegations. NovaStar does not

assert, and could not assert credibly, that it is unable to prepare an answer in such an

extraordinarily long time. 

NovaStar suggests that hope remains for settlement of the plaintiffs’ claims. The

Court of course encourages amicable compromises of disputed claims, but the parties’

desire to exhaust all possibilities of settlement before incurring litigation costs does not

and cannot trump the responsibility of the Court to ensure the orderly progression of cases

on its docket. The judicial process would be unacceptably paralyzed could the parties’

vague and prolonged invocations of settlement possibility grind the process to a halt. 

Settlement negotiations and litigation are simultaneous, not sequential, tracks.3

For the reasons set forth above, NovaStar’s motion for extension of time is denied. 

NovaStar is ordered to file and serve its answer on or before March 12, 2007. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00578-WS-B Document 53 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 3