In Re Carmen Astrid Bergeron

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 CARMEN ASTRID BERGERON, CASE NO. C24-0929JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 13 TRUST COMPANY AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR NEW 14 CENTURY HOME EQUITY LOAN 15 TRUST 2006-1, 16 Defendant. 17 Before the court is pro se Appellant Carmen Astrid Bergeron’s letter seeking 18 authorization to file a motion for reconsideration or to supplement the record in this 19 appeal. (Letter (Dkt. # 43).) For the reasons explained more fully below, the court 20 DENIES Ms. Bergeron’s request. 21 22 1 On March 4, 2025, the court affirmed the June 12, 2024 order of the United States 2 Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington granting Carrington Mortgage

3 Services as servicing agent for Defendant-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust 4 Company, as Indenture Trustee for New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-1 relief 5 from the automatic stay. (See 3/4/25 Order (Dkt. # 31); Judgment (Dkt. # 32)); see In re 6 Carmen Astrid Bergeron, 23-12506CMA (Bankr. W.D. Wash.), Bankr. Dkt. # 37.1 In its 7 March 4 order, the court denied Ms. Bergeron’s request for leave to file supplemental 8 briefing to address certain “newly discovered evidence” because she did not show that

9 the evidence was before the bankruptcy court at the time of its June 12, 2024 order. (See 10 3/4/25 Order at 5-6; id. at 6 (citing In re Yun, 476 B.R. 243, 251 (9th Cir. BAP 2012) 11 (“an appellate court will not consider an issue unless it was raised and considered by the 12 [bankruptcy] court”)); In re Home America T.V.-Appliance Audio, Inc., 232 F.3d 1046, 13 1052 (9th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider on appeal a new legal argument never

14 presented to the bankruptcy court)).) 15 On April 1, 2025, Ms. Bergeron moved to alter or amend the court’s March 4 16 order and judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Rule 59 Mot. 17 (Dkt. # 34).) Ms. Bergeron, in pertinent part, argued that Rule 59(e) relief was 18 appropriate based on “newly surfaced facts” “all discovered after entry of the [c]ourt’s

19 March 4, 2025 order.” (Id. at 2, 6.) On April 2, 2024, the court denied Ms. Bergeron’s 20 Rule 59(e) motion because she did not show that these “newly surfaced facts” were raised 21

1 Citations to the “Bankr. Dkt.” refer to the applicable docket number of the bankruptcy 22 docket filings included in the record on appeal. 1 before or considered by the bankruptcy court at the time of its June 12, 2024 order. 2 (4/2/25 Order (Dkt. # 36) at 5.) The court warned Ms. Bergeron that it would not

3 consider “new” evidence that was not before the bankruptcy court in this appeal. (Id.) 4 Ms. Bergeron appealed the court’s March 4 and April 2 orders on May 5, 2025. (Not. 5 App. (Dkt. # 37).) 6 On May 6, 2025, Ms. Bergeron moved to stay the enforcement of the court’s 7 March 4 and April 2 orders pending the resolution of her appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 8 (MTS (Dkt. # 38).) On May 8, 2025, the court denied Ms. Bergeron’s motion and, in

9 pertinent part, observed that she had repeatedly attempted to raise “new” arguments that 10 were not before the bankruptcy court at the time of its June 12, 2024 order, despite the 11 court’s repeated reminders that it would not consider such evidence in this appeal. 12 (5/8/25 Order (Dkt. # 39) at 5, 7.) Consequently, the court ordered that, before filing any 13 future motions in this case, Ms. Bergeron must first submit a letter to the court

14 demonstrating that any relief she intends to seek is based on evidence that was before the 15 bankruptcy court at the time of its June 12, 2024 order. (Id. at 7.) 16 On May 15, 2025, Ms. Bergeron filed a letter seeking leave to “file a . . . motion 17 for reconsideration or to supplement the record” based on evidence regarding the chapter 18 7 trustee’s alleged “use of a materially altered written ‘Order Compelling Cooperation’”

19 to initiate the sale of Ms. Bergeron’s homestead. (Letter at 1-2.) Ms. Bergeron 20 represents that this “altered” order was drafted and submitted by the trustee in September 21 22 1 2024—two months after the bankruptcy court’s June 12, 2024 order was entered. (Id. at 2 1.)2

3 Because this “altered” order was not raised before or considered by the bankruptcy 4 court at the time of its June 12, 2024 order, the court DENIES Ms. Bergeron’s request for 5 leave to file another motion or to supplement the record in this matter. The court will 6 strike any additional requests by Ms. Bergeron to consider new evidence in this appeal. 7 Dated this 9th day of September, 2025. A 8 JAMES L. ROBART 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 2 Mr. Bergeron further represents that this “altered” order is the subject of a related 21 appeal that is not pending before this court. (Letter at 1); see Bergeron v. Wood, No. C24-1682MJP (W.D. Wash.). That appeal was dismissed and the case was closed in December 22 2024. See Wood, No. C24-1682MJP, Dkt. # 9.