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 TO VACATE 17 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; 18 CHASE BANK; DEUTSCHE BANK 19 NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, 20 Defendants. 21 22 Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment, ECF 23 No. 134, and Motion to Vacate Judge Pechman's Judgement and Rulings in 24 Violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), ECF No. 136. Plaintiffs are pro se. Defendants 25 are represented by Fred B. Burnside and Joshua A. Rataezyk. The motions were 26 considered without oral argument. 27 Although titled as motions to vacate, it appears Plaintiffs have actually filed 28 motions for reconsideration under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 1 (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment) and the 2 Court will construe the motions as such. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 3 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and, 4 in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources, is used sparingly. 5 Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 6 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 7 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 8 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. 9 Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is 10 within the discretion of the district court. See 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 11 179 F.3d 656, 661 (9th Cir.1999). 12 Judgment has already been determined in favor of Defendants and affirmed 13 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ECF Nos. 92 and 101, and Plaintiffs do not 14 meet the taxing standard for reconsideration. 15 While Plaintiffs’ briefing is somewhat difficult to follow, they initially 16 appear to seek reconsideration due to a statute that was not disclosed to them; 17 however, they then proceed to claim that Defendants “are felons for the reason we 18 have set forth in our Complaint and Summons . . . briefs . . . declarations and 19 affidavits.” They further accuse Defendants of forgery, extortion, and repeatedly 20 “abus[ing] a name salad to confuse the courts.” Despite these allegations, Plaintiffs 21 have made no showing that Defendants committed any wrongdoing or that the 22 judgment was entered as a result of any said wrongdoing or confusion by the 23 courts. In conclusion, the motions and related affidavit do not present newly 24 discovered evidence, do not show clear error or a decision that is manifestly unjust, 25 and do not demonstrate an intervening change in controlling law. The Court thus 26 denies both motions. 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment, ECF No. 134, and Motion to Vacate Judge Pechman's Judgement and Rulings in Violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), ECF No. 136, are DENIED. 5 2. The case remains closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, forward copies to counsel, and close the file. 8 DATED this 15th day of January 2025. 9 1 Gfoackyld eth ee Stanity A Bestian United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDPER NISMISSING MOTIONS TQ VACATE £2