Padilla et al v. One West Bank

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/5/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. 10-04080 CW

RONALD C. PADILLA and EVA PADILLA,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND
JUDGMENT

v.
ONE WEST BANK,

13

Defendant.
/

14
15
16

This case involves Defendant’s attempt to foreclose on a deed

17

of trust that is secured by Plaintiffs’ residence.

18

2010, the Court issued an order dismissing all of Plaintiffs’

19

claims.

20

Procedures Act (RESPA) was dismissed with leave to amend; all other

21

claims were dismissed without leave to amend because amendment

22

would be futile.

23

file an amended complaint to remedy the deficiencies noted in the

24

RESPA claim.

25

fourteen days and, on January 6, 2011, the Court dismissed the

26

RESPA claim and closed the case.

27
28

On December 20,

Plaintiffs’ claim under the Real Estate Settlement

Plaintiffs were given fourteen days in which to

Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint within

On April 15, 2011, Ronald Padilla filed a letter requesting
that the Court set aside its judgment on the ground that Defendant

1

did not offer to mediate pursuant to a bill introduced in the House

2

of Representatives known as the Foreclosure Mandatory Mediation Act

3

of 2010 which requires lenders of home loans to consent to

4

mandatory mediation.

5

relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Procedure 60.

The Court construes this as a motion for

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that, "upon

7

such terms as are just," a court may relieve a party from final

8

judgment for the following reasons:

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence could not have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
been satisfied, released or discharged; (6) any other
reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment.

13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

A motion brought under Rule 60(b) is

14
similar to a motion under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil
15
Procedure, except that it may be asserted after the ten-day time
16
limit for motions brought under Rule 59.

Rule 59(e) motions to

17
alter or amend the judgment are appropriate if the district court
18
"(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed
19
clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or
20
(3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law."

School

21
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
22
1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994).
23
Plaintiffs have not met the requirements of Rule 59 or 60.
24
They has not provided new evidence or shown that other
25
extraordinary circumstances justify reconsideration of the Court's
26
judgment.

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives does

27
28

2

1
2
3

not qualify as an intervening change in controlling law.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the judgment is
denied.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: 5/5/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3

RONALD C. PADILLA et al,
Case Number: CV10-04080 CW

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
ONE WEST BANK et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

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 May 5, 2011, 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.

13
14
15
16

Eva K. Padilla
2555 Spyglass Hills Rd.
Livermore, CA 94551

18

Ronald C. Padilla
2555 Spyglass Hills Rd.
Livermore, CA 94551

19

Dated: May 5, 2011

17

20

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4