Wright v. Chase Home Finance LLC et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 40 Motion for New Trial and motion to amend complaint. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 4/11/12.(SJF)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Laurie F. Wright, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 Chase Home Finance LLC, 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 11-00095-PHX-FJM ORDER 15 16 The court has before it plaintiff's motion for a new trial and motion to amend her 17 complaint (doc. 40). After we granted in part a motion to extend time for plaintiff to respond 18 to defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's deadline to respond was March 2, 19 2012. Plaintiff did not respond. Accordingly, on March 9, 2012 we entered an order 20 granting summary judgment in favor of defendant (doc. 36). The Clerk entered judgment the 21 same day (doc. 37). This motion was filed on April 6, 2012. 22 Plaintiff moves for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59, Fed. R. Civ. P. This rule is 23 inapplicable to plaintiff's situation, as no trial was ever held. If we construe this motion as 24 a motion for reconsideration of our order granting summary judgment, it is untimely. LRCiv 25 7.2(g)(2) requires motions for reconsideration to be filed within fourteen days after the 26 challenged order is filed, unless good cause is shown. Plaintiff has not shown good cause 27 for filing the motion late, nor has she shown "manifest error or a showing of new facts or 28 legal authority" that would justify our granting the motion. See id. 7.2(g)(1). Construing the 1 motion as one for relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., we find that 2 plaintiff has not shown "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect," or any other 3 reason, that would justify setting aside the judgment. See id. Plaintiff admits that she was 4 aware of the deadline to file her response to the motion for summary judgment, but did not 5 file either a response or a second motion for extension of time prior to our order granting 6 summary judgment (which was issued a full week after plaintiff's response was due). Even 7 if plaintiff was looking for a lawyer at the time, this does not excuse failing to meet a filing 8 deadline. 9 Next, plaintiff moves for a new trial against other defendants she named in her second 10 amended complaint. At the Rule 16 scheduling conference, we dismissed all defendants 11 other than Chase (doc. 21). To the extent that plaintiff now wishes to pursue claims against 12 these other defendants, we remind plaintiff that our dismissal of these defendants was 13 without prejudice. Finally, plaintiff moves to amend her complaint. Our Rule 16 scheduling 14 order, issued on August 4, 2011, stated that no further amendments to the complaint would 15 be permitted (doc. 22). Moreover, the Clerk has already entered judgment in this case. It is 16 too late for plaintiff to amend her complaint in this action. 17 18 19 IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for a new trial and motion to amend her complaint (doc. 40). DATED this 11th day of April, 2012. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?