Erickson v. Long Beach Mortgage Co

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 JOHN E. ERICKSON; SHELLEY A. 11 ERICKSON; SHELLY’S TOTAL BODY No. 2:10-CV-01423-SAB 12 WORKS DAY SPA/SHELLY’S SUNTAN 13 PARLOR, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. ORDER DISMISSING 16 LONG BEACH MORTGAGE CO.; MOTIONS FOR 17 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; RECONSIDERATION 18 CHASE BANK; DEUTSCHE BANK 19 NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, 20 Defendants. 21 22 Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motions for Reconsideration, ECF Nos. 128 23 and 130. Plaintiffs are represented pro se. Defendants are represented by Fred B. 24 Burnside and Joshua A. Rataezyk. The motions were considered without oral 25 argument. 26 Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 27 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. 28 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for 1 reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. 3 Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court 4 may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered 5 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 6 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. 7 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). 8 “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting 9 reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for 10 reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 11 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 12 Cir. 2003). 13 Plaintiffs did not meet the standard for reconsideration outlined in case law. 14 Plaintiffs’ briefing is somewhat difficult to follow, but in the end, it provides no 15 new evidence, it does not show clear error or a decision that is manifestly unjust, 16 and there is no intervening change in controlling law on this matter. Being fully 17 informed, the Court denies both motions. 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motions for Reconsideration, ECF No. 128, and ECF No. 130, are DENIED. 2. The case remains closed. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, forward copies to counsel, and close the file. DATED this 14th day of February 2024. 8 9 ‘ 10 _Sfuckyl eta 11 Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER PNILCMISSING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION #2