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 DENYING MOTION 16 LONG BEACH MORTGAGE CO.; TO VACATE 17 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; 18 CHASE BANK; DEUTSCHE BANK 19 NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, 20 Defendants. 21 22 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate All Orders in this Case, 23 ECF No. 138. Plaintiffs are pro se. Defendants are represented by Fred B. Burnside 24 and Joshua A. Rataezyk. The motion was considered without oral argument. 25 Although titled as a motion to vacate, it appears Plaintiffs have actually filed 26 a motion for reconsideration under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 27 (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment) and the 28 Court will construe the motions as such. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 1 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and, 2 in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources, is used sparingly. 3 Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 4 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 5 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 6 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. 7 Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is 8 within the discretion of the district court. See 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 9 179 F.3d 656, 661 (9th Cir.1999). 10 Judgment has already been determined in favor of Defendants and affirmed 11 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ECF Nos. 92 and 101, and Plaintiffs do not 12 meet the taxing standard for reconsideration. 13 While Plaintiffs’ briefing is somewhat difficult to follow, they appear to 14 seek reconsideration due to their disagreement with the captioning of Defendants 15 in this case. They concede that this is the fourth time they have submitted the same 16 argument but contend that this time they have provided supporting caselaw that 17 was previously unknown to them. However, even assuming the caselaw Plaintiffs 18 cite were applicable, that is not the standard: there must be a change in controlling 19 caselaw since the prior ruling, not merely a discovery of caselaw that was 20 previously unknown. Here, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate new evidence, a 21 change in controlling caselaw, or that the courts’ decisions in this matter have been 22 manifestly unjust. The Court denies the motion. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate All Orders in this Case, ECF No. 138, is 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 15th day of September 2025. 8 ~ 9 10 hin in her 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 NENVING MOTION TO VACATE #2