Stolk v. Bank of America NA

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA SHAYLON STOLK, NO. 3:25-cv-05128-JHC 12 Plaintiffs, v. STIPULATED MOTION FOR 13 RELIEF FROM DEADLINE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: EXPERIAN INFORMATION May 30, 2025 SOLUTIONS, INC., and TRANS UNION LLC, 17 Defendants.

I. STIPULATED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINE Plaintiff SHAYLON STOLK (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (“BANA”); EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC (Equifax); and TRANS UNION LLC (“Trans Union”) respectfully request the following modification of the briefing deadlines as to BANA’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28; Dkt. 29): • Plaintiff shall file any response to BANA’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28; Dkt. 29) on or before June 6, 2025; • Any reply by BANA shall be filed on or before June 13, 2025.

STIPULATED MOTION FOR 1 RELIEF FROM DEADLINE II. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) sets forth the requirements for obtaining an extension of time in a civil matter. See, e.g., Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, n.4 (1993). Rule 6(b) gives the district court the discretion to extend any specified deadline for “good cause” shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). The decision whether to provide such an extension of time rests within the discretion of the district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Rule 6(b)(1)(A) “gives the court wide discretion to grant a request for additional time that is made prior to the expiration of the period originally prescribed or prior to the expiration of the period as extended by a previous order.” Wright & Miller, § 1165 Extending Time—In General, 4B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. (4th ed.). Absent bad faith by the movant or prejudice to the adverse party, “an application for extension of time under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) normally will be granted.”

Id.; see also Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 394 (10th Cir. 2016) (“A leading treatise similarly suggests that district courts should normally grant extension requests, made before the deadline, in the absence of bad faith by the requesting party or prejudice to another party.”) (quoting Wright & Miller); Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010).

Here, good cause exists to briefly extend the deadlines associated with BANA’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28; Dkt. 29) because Plaintiff recently provided a proposed Amended Complaint to Defendants’ respective counsel and requested that they confirm whether Defendants will consent to a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint under Rule 15(a)(2). Plaintiff awaits a response to this request.

If Defendants’ consent to Plaintiff’s forthcoming Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, then the Amended Complaint will be filed, mooting BANA’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28; Dkt. 29). Plaintiff seeks a brief extension to respond to the BANA’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28; Dkt. 29) to determine whether it will be mooted by the filing of an Amended Complaint with consent of Defendants.

STIPULATED MOTION FOR 2 RELIEF FROM DEADLINE There is no prejudice to Defendants for the requested extension, as evidenced by their consent. If one or more Defendants declines to consent to the filing of an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff will file her Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint as a contested motion, and, if the Court grants the motion, then BANA’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28; Dkt. 29) will be mooted. If the filing of an Amended Complaint is contested, Plaintiff will file her opposition to BANA’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28; Dkt. 29) and her contested Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint on or before June 6, 2025.

The requested extension will not impact any other deadlines in the case or cause undue delay.

The undersigned counsel certify that the foregoing contains 573 words in compliance with the Local Civil Rules.

IT IS SO STIPULATED this 30th day of May, 2025 at Tacoma, Washington by S//SaraEllen Hutchison SaraEllen Hutchison (WSBA #36137) LAW OFFICE OF SARAELLEN HUTCHISON, PLLC 16 1102 A St Ste 300 PMB 66 Tacoma, WA 98402 17 Telephone: (206) 529-5195 Facsimile: (253) 302-8486 E-mail: [email protected] S//Drew D. Sarrett 20 Drew D. Sarrett (admitted pro hac vice) CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.

21 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: (804) 905-9900 23 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff S//Nicholas Hesterberg STIPULATED MOTION FOR 3 RELIEF FROM DEADLINE 1 Nicholas Hesterberg, WSBA No. 41970 MILLER NASH LLP 5th Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: 206.624.8300 4 Fax: 206.340.9599 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Defendant Bank of America, N.A.

7 S//Andrew R. Escobar Andrew R. Escobar, WSBA No. 42793 8 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Third Avenue, Suite 4700 9 Seattle, Washington 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 946-4910 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Defendant Equifax Information 12 Services LLC S//Ian N. Fuqua Ian N. Fuqua (admitted pro hac vice) 15 QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, WINSLETT & MOSER, P.C.

16 10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 200 Indianapolis, IN 46290 17 Telephone: (317) 497-5600 Email: [email protected] 19 Attorneys for Defendant Trans Union LLC

STIPULATED MOTION FOR 4 RELIEF FROM DEADLINE 1 ORDER 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to re-note the motion at Dkt. # 28 for June 13, 2025.

5 Dated this 30th day of May, 2025.

8 Ck H.CHUN is 9 United States District Judge STIPULATED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINE 3:25-cv-05 128-JHC