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)

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-