Milbrandt v. Sunwest Mortgage Corporation

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Pearl M Milbrandt, No. CV-25-00225-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Sunwest Mortgage Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On February 4, 2025, the court dismissed plaintiff Pearl M. Milbrandt’s complaint 16 based on a lack of jurisdiction and in the alternative a failure to allege plausible claims. 17 (Doc. 8.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 9.) On February 10, 2025, Milbrandt 18 filed an “amended complaint.” (Doc. 10.) On February 28, 2025, Milbrandt filed a notice 19 of change of address and a “second amended complaint.” (Doc. 11, 12.) Those filings were 20 not accompanied by a request to set aside the judgment, and the court took no action in 21 response to them other than updating Milbrandt’s address. 22 On April 7, 2025, Milbrandt filed a motion to reopen her case. (Doc. 13.) That 23 motion argues Milbrandt did not receive a copy of the court’s February 4 order and 24 judgment.1 (Doc. 13 at 2.) The motion also argues the judgment should be set aside based 25 on “[t]he failure of the Clerk’s Office to properly file and notify Plaintiff of the Amended 26 Complaint’s status and the Court’s silence regarding the fee waiver request.” (Doc. 13 at 27 1 The docket reflects the February 4 order and judgment were mailed to Milbrandt’s 28 previous address and not returned. Copies of those documents will be sent to Milbrandt’s updated address. 2.) 2 Milbrandt made two attempts to amend her complaint after final judgment was || entered. Once “a final judgment is entered following dismissal of an action, the plaintiff no 4|| longer has the right to amend the complaint as a matter of course.” Jarvis v. Regan, 833 || F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987). Instead, a plaintiff hoping to file an amended complaint in || a case where judgment has been entered must file a motion to reopen the case before 7\| seeking amendment. Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[O]nce 8 || judgment has been entered in a case, a motion to amend the complaint can only be entertained if the judgment is first reopened under a motion brought under Rule 59 or 60.”). || Because Milbrandt did not file a request to reopen her case before filing her amended 11 |} complaints, those filings had no effect, and the court was not required to address them. 12 As for Milbrandt’s request to reopen her case, she is entitled to such relief “only 13 || upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) 15} extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 16|| Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (simplified). Milbrandt does 17 || not make a sufficient showing under any of these alternatives. Judgment was entered based 18 || on the merits of Milbrandt’s complaint, not because of any mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect. Milbrandt does not identify any newly discovered evidence or fraud, nor does she 20 || provide any basis to conclude the judgment was void. And Milbrant has not pointed to any || extraordinary circumstances that might justify relief. 22 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Reopen (Doc. 13) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court 23 || shall mail plaintiff a copy of this order as well as copies of Doc. 8 and Doc. 9. 24 Dated this 10th day of April, 2025. 25 4, {yf Vo AM. \ G / AA ANCA FY UC Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 28 United States District Judge

_2-