LaComba v. Eagle Home Loans and Investment LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Larry Lee LaComba, Sr. & Rochelle Louise No. 2:23-cv-00370-KJM-DB LaComba, 12 ORDER B Plaintiffs, 14 v: 15 Eagle Home Loans and Investment, LLC & Del Toro Loan Services, Inc., Defendants.

18 Plaintiffs Larry LaComba, Sr. and Rochelle LaComba brings this action against | defendants Eagle Home Loans and Investment, LLC (Eagle) and Del Toro Loan Services, Inc., to | enforce their rescission of the second mortgage and deed of trust obtained from defendants.

21 | Defendant Eagle moves to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. For the reasons below, the court denies | the motion without prejudice for failure to meet and confer.

23 Defendant did not seek to meet and confer prior to or during the briefing period. See | Mot., ECF No. 6; P. & A., ECF No. 6-1; McClenahan Decl., ECF No. 6-3. This court’s standing | order requires attorneys to meet and confer with one another before they file motions. See | Standing Order at 3, ECF No. 3-1; Mollica v. County of Sacramento, No. 19-2017, | 2022 WL 15053335, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). Attorneys who intend to file motions must | “discuss thoroughly the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution.”

1 | Standing Order at 3. “Counsel should discuss the issues sufficiently so that if a motion of any | kindis filed... the briefing is directed only to those substantive issues requiring resolution by the | court.” /d. If a motion is necessary after meeting and conferring, the moving party must include a | certification by an attorney “that meet and confer efforts have been exhausted, with a brief | summary of meet and confer efforts.” /d. (emphasis omitted).

6 “Meeting and conferring saves time and money for all involved—if done correctly.

7 | Productive discussions spare both the moving and opposing party the time they would otherwise | have devoted to writing unnecessary or ineffective arguments.” Mollica, 2022 WL 15053335, at | *1. The court’s requirement to meet and confer facilitates informal dispute resolution and thereby | promotes judicial economy.

11 With respect to the motion pending in this case, the court is not willing to excuse | noncompliance with its standing order. There is no indication defendant even attempted to meet | and confer. Further, meeting and conferring would help narrow disputes as indicated by | defendant’s motion. For example, defendant states it “moves to strike the allegations directed to | Doe Defendants” if the motion to dismiss is denied, and “will move for a more definite statement | on grounds that the complaint is so indefinite that defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the | claim being asserted and/or make conclusory, confused, and unclear claims.” Mot. at 2. Because | defendant’s motion is not in compliance with the standing order, and the court finds meeting and | conferring would be beneficial in this case, the court denies without prejudice defendant’s | motion to dismiss. The motion hearing on defendant’s motion and the status (pretrial scheduling) | conference set for May 19, 2023 are vacated. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference is reset | to July 21, 2023. The parties shall file a joint status report no later than July 7, 2023.

23 This order resolves ECF No. 6.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 DATED: April 24, 2023. [ (] 26 l tie / f os CHIEF ONT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE