Aniel et al v. Aurora Loan Services LLC et al

Filing 93

ORDER re Plaintiffs' Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 8/23/10. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2010)

Aniel et al v. Aurora Loan Services LLC et al

Doc. 93

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FERMIN SOLIS ANIEL and ERLINDA ABIBAS ANIEL, Plaintiffs, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, et al., Defendants. / On August 5, 2010, this Court issued an Order granting motions to dismiss, in which it dismissed certain claims and defendants with prejudice and in which it gave Plaintiffs' leave to amend certain other claims, and on that same date the Court entered judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to Defendants Quality Loan Services, Inc. ("Quality") and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS")1 On August 13, 2010, Plaintiffs' filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that Order. Because the Court has entered judgment in favor of MERS and Quality, and because Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, as to those defendants, the Court construes the motion as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). It is HEREBY ORDERED that Quality and MERS shall file an opposition to the motion by no later than September 10, 2010. Plaintiffs may file a reply by September 17, 2010.

No. C 10-01042 JSW ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In the Judgment, the Court inadvertently referred to MERS as "Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc."
1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

If the Court determines that a hearing is required, it shall notify the parties. Because no judgment has been entered as to Aurora and McCarthy, the motion is properly treated as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. At this time, the Court does not require a response from either Aurora or McCarthy, and the Court shall address the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration with respect to those defendants once it has received the briefing from MERS and Quality. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 23, 2010 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FERMIN SOLIS ANIEL et al, Plaintiff, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC et al, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Case Number: CV10-01042 JSW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on August 23, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Erlinda Abibas Aniel 75 Tobin Clark Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 Fermin Solis Aniel 75 Tobin Clark Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010

Dated: August 23, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk 3