UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rosemary A. Gilroy

v. Civil No. 07-cv-74-JD

Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al.

O R D E R

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Rosemary A. Gilroy

brought suit against Ameriquest Mortgage Company (“Ameriquest”),

Ameriquest Mortgage Company Mortgage Services, Inc. (“AMC

Services”), and Citi Residential Lending, Inc. (“Citi”), alleging

predatory lending practices in violation of New Hampshire law. 

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on

Counts I, II, III, IV, and VI of Gilroy’s amended complaint, and

the only remaining claim in this case is the harassment claim, as

alleged in Count V. Trial is scheduled for the period beginning

March 17, 2009. 

Before the court are several motions filed by Gilroy and a

single motion filed by the defendants. Although the defendants

have not yet responded to Gilroy’s motions, the court will

address them to avoid further delay.

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 99 Filed 03/04/09 Page 1 of 6
2

Discussion

I. Gilroy’s Motions

A. Motion to Recuse

Gilroy’s recusal motion rests on the ground that the

undersigned judge dismissed an earlier civil suit filed by her in

an unrelated matter. This is an insufficient basis for recusal. 

The motion (document no. 92) is denied.

B. Motion for a Continuance

Gilroy requests a two-month continuance on the ground that

she has spoken with an attorney who “intends” to represent her in

this matter. Gilroy Motion to Continue, document no. 95. 

Despite Gilroy’s assertion, no attorney has filed an appearance

with the court in this case on her behalf. This case was filed

on March 15, 2007, and Gilroy has had almost two years to hire an

attorney. While an attorney may file an appearance on Gilroy’s

behalf and may represent her at trial, a continuance will not be

granted, less than two weeks before trial, for the purpose of

allowing Gilroy more time to secure an attorney. The court

denies Gilroy’s motion for a continuance (document no. 95). 

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 99 Filed 03/04/09 Page 2 of 6
3

C. Motions to Extend Time to File Motions for 

Reconsideration

Gilroy requests an additional thirty days to file a motion

for reconsideration (document no. 93) of the court’s February 20,

2009, order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants

and an additional ten days to file a motion for reconsideration

(document no. 97) of the court’s February 27, 2009, order

granting the defendants’ motion to strike Gilroy’s expert

disclosure and denying Gilroy’s motion to strike the defendants’

motion to strike. Gilroy bases both motions on her assertion

that she has consulted an attorney who intends to represent her

and prepare her motions for reconsideration. 

As the court stated above, no appearance has been filed by

any attorney in this case and Gilroy’s motion for a continuance

has been denied. Gilroy offers no other justification for her

request for an extension of time and her motions (document nos.

93 & 97) are therefore denied.

D. Motions to Extend Time to File Objections

Gilroy requests an extension of time to file an objection

(document no. 94) to the defendants’ motion to amend the

scheduling order and an extension of time to file an objection

(document no. 98) to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment

on Count V. The defendants’ motion to amend the scheduling order

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 99 Filed 03/04/09 Page 3 of 6
4

has been resolved in her favor and, therefore, an objection is

not necessary, although she may file one for the record. See

Order (March 3, 2009, document no. 89). Further, the defendants

have not filed a motion for summary judgment on Count V. They

only referenced their intent to file a summary judgment motion

should the court grant their motion to amend the scheduling

order. As stated above, the court denied the motion and

explained that a late summary judgment motion on Count V will not

be permitted. Given that a summary judgment motion on Count V

has not been filed, no objection is warranted. Gilroy’s motions

to extend time to object (documents nos. 94 & 98) are terminated

as moot.

II. Defendants’ Motion

A. Motion to Excuse Defendants

Pursuant to Local Rule 16.3(a), the defendants request that

they be excused from physically appearing at the pretrial

conference scheduled for March 9, 2009. Gilroy filed a motion

requesting an additional ten days to file an objection (document

no. 96) to the defendants’ motion. Gilroy’s objection is noted. 

Since the pretrial conference is imminent, the court will proceed

to rule on the defendants’ request.

In support of their motion, the defendants state that a

physical appearance would require a representative to travel from

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 99 Filed 03/04/09 Page 4 of 6
5

California, that a representative will be available by telephone,

that their counsel will appear on their behalf, and that he will

have settlement authority. Based upon the defendants’

representations, the court finds that granting their motion will

not result in prejudice to Gilroy. The defendants’ motion

(document no. 86) is granted, and Gilroy’s request for an

extension of time (document no. 96) to object to the motion is

denied. The defendants shall ensure that a representative is

available by telephone for the pretrial conference.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Gilroy’s motion to recuse

(document no. 92), motion to continue (document no. 95), motions

to extend time to file motion for reconsideration (document nos.

93 & 97), and motion to extend time to object to the defendants’

motion to be excused from physically appearing at the pretrial

conference (documents no. 96) are denied. Gilroy’s motions to

extend time to file an objection to the defendants’ motion to

amend the scheduling order (document no. 94) and to the

defendants’ motion for summary judgment (document no. 98) are

terminated as moot. The defendants’ motion to excuse their

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 99 Filed 03/04/09 Page 5 of 6
6

physical appearance at the pretrial conference (document no. 86)

is granted.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 4, 2009

cc: Rosemary Gilroy, pro se

Thomas Tretter, Esquire

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 99 Filed 03/04/09 Page 6 of 6