Opinion
2:22-cv-01518-APG-BNW
12-27-2022
ARMANNA BELLOW, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant.
John S. Delikanakis (NV Bar #5928) Erin M. Gettel (NV Bar #13877) SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A.
John S. Delikanakis (NV Bar #5928)
Erin M. Gettel (NV Bar #13877)
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A.
MOTION TO CONTINUE ECF NO. 16 (FIRST REQUEST)
BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) moves to continue the December 22 deadline to submit the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. As set forth below, BANA has been unable to confer with Bellow in order to submit the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Due to the upcoming holidays, BANA respectfully requests an extension to January 5, 2023.
On August 24, 2022, Bellow filed a two-page complaint alleging that he misplaced his bank card in June of 2022 and that someone has since made unauthorized withdrawals from his account on unspecified dates and for unspecified amounts. ECF No. 1-1. He further alleges that whoever is taking his money is “associating” with BANA and making the bank “cover” the transactions, so he is entitled to $120,000 from BANA. Id. at 2.
BANA removed Bellow's complaint to this Court and filed a motion to dismiss it, arguing that Bellow's conclusory and confusing allegations fail to provide fair notice of Bellow's claim(s) or to state a plausible claim for relief. ECF No. 6. BANA also filed the required statement and status report regarding removal, though was unable to obtain Bellow's consent to file a joint status report. ECF Nos. 10, 11. Bellow did not attempt to initiate the scheduling of the Rule 26(f) conference as required by the local rules. See LR 26-1(a) (“The pro se plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney must initiate the scheduling of the conference required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) to be held within 30 days after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears”).
Bellow did not file an opposition to BANA'S dismissal motion but did file a one-paragraph document purporting to set forth his “evidence on this case” to which he appended 40 pages of account statements without analysis. ECF No. 9. In that filing, Bellow indicated that someone stole his backpack in Hawthorne, California, on June 9, 2022. Id. at 1. According to Bellow, he blocked and replaced the stolen card, but BANA was “still allowing one of their associates to take money from” his account. Id. Because BANA is “such a high class company world wide,” Bellow reiterated his request for a judgment of $120,000. Id.
On October 18, 2022, BANA filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. BANA explained that, because Bellow failed to file points and authorities responsive to its motion, he had consented to the granting of the same under Local Rule 7-2(d). ECF No. 11 at 2. Further, that even if this Court were to treat Bellow's filing as an opposition, it does not cure-or suggest that Bellow can cure-his defective complaint. Id. at 2-4.
Bellow then filed another one-page document titled “Motion for Relief/Collection of Funds” to which he attached additional account statements. ECF No. 12. In that filing, Bellow reiterated that an unknown person stole his backpack (and ID and ATM card) in Hawthorne, California. Id. at 1. He stated that, although the stolen card was blocked and replaced, “[s]omebody with in Bank of America [is] pulling money from [his] account [to] this day....” Id. Bellow then referenced either BANA's motion to dismiss or reply in support of that motion and attempted to clarify that there is “no one person” within BANA responsible for the purportedly missing funds but that it's “the [w]hole corporate company itself” that is making his life hard and committing fraud. Id. at 1. In closing, Bellow upped his requested judgment to $75 million.
Bellow did not reference a specific filing, but references arguments made by John Delikanakis, who is one of the BANA attorneys listed on both of these filings.
In an abundance of caution, BANA filed both an opposition to, and a motion to strike, Bellow's Motion for Relief/Collection of Funds. ECF Nos. 13, 14. This Court denied Bellow's motion under LR 7-2(d) and denied BANA's motion to strike it as moot. ECF No. 15. On December 8, 2022, this Court ordered the parties to submit a discovery plan and scheduling order by December 22, 2022.
Bellow still has made no attempt to initiate a Rule 26(f) conference in order to prepare the stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order. BANA has e-mailed and left a voicemail with Bellow regarding the scheduling of that conference and the contents of the report. Undersigned emailed Bellow on December 21, 2022, at 11:51 a.m. PST. Bellow responded at 6:43 a.m. PST this morning (December 22) that he would be available “tomorrow,” which would be past today's deadline, and did not provide a time. Shortly before 10:30 a.m., undersigned responded with her cell phone number and asked that Bellow call as soon as he is able since the report is due today. At 1:30 p.m. PST,, undersigned left Bellow a voicemail regarding the conference and report. As of the time of this filing, Bellow has not responded. In the meantime, BANA has filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. ECF No. 17.
Under LR IA 6-1, a party seeking to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline that the court has granted. This is the first request to continue the deadline set by ECF No. 16. The reason for the request is set forth above: the parties have not held the Rule 26(f) conference and conferred regarding the discovery plan and scheduling order. While undersigned could and candidly should have initiated contact with Bellow sooner, that obligation initially rested with Bellow under the local rules, and undersigned has now made several attempts to contact him without success. For these reasons and due to the upcoming holidays, BANA respectfully requests a two-week extension to January 5, 2023, to file the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order.
ORDER
For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 18 is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED