From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Osadchuk v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE
Oct 27, 2015
Civil No. 15-6961 (RMB/AMD) (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2015)

Opinion

Civil No. 15-6961 (RMB/AMD)

10-27-2015

ROMAN P. OSADCHUK et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On October 15, 2015, defendant Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. ("Defendant Fein, Such") filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. [Docket No. 35]. The Court administratively terminated the motion because Defendant Fein, Such failed to comply with this Court's Individual Rules and Procedures. [Docket No. 36].

On October 20, 2015, co-defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. ("Defendant Citi") filed a pre-motion conference letter in compliance with this Court's Rules and Procedures. [Docket No. 37]. On October 23, 2015, Defendant Fein, Such filed a pre-motion conference letter. [Docket No. 38].

On October 26, 2015, plaintiffs Roman P. Osadchuk and Roseann P. Osadchuk ("Plaintiffs") filed a one-page response to Citi's letter. [Docket No. 39]. Plaintiffs' persiflage is not helpful; it demeans this Court's Rules and Procedures. The Court established its Rules and Procedures "in an effort to resolve cases expeditiously" and with a view towards bringing clarity and focus to the claims and issues at hand. Plaintiffs' letter is not only void of any legal analysis but states that "[i]t is likely Plaintiffs will request leave of court to file an amended complaint to incorporate New Jersey law." [Docket No. 39]. As this case was filed almost ten months ago, and has been amended once [Docket No. 19], the reason for the delay is unclear.

Accordingly,

IT IS ON THIS 27th day of October 2015 , ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs shall, within 5 business days of this Order, file a response to Defendant Citi's pre-motion letter that addresses each claim with a cogent legal analysis.

2. Plaintiffs shall also address in their submission (in one additional page) why this matter is not barred by the Entire Controversy Doctrine. See Coleman v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 2009 WL 3806417 (D.N.J. Nov. 10, 2009), aff'd, 446 F.App'x. 469 (3d. Cir. 2011).

s/Renée Marie Bumb

RENÉE MARIE BUMB

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Osadchuk v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE
Oct 27, 2015
Civil No. 15-6961 (RMB/AMD) (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2015)
Case details for

Osadchuk v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROMAN P. OSADCHUK et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

Date published: Oct 27, 2015

Citations

Civil No. 15-6961 (RMB/AMD) (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2015)