Burns et al v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions LLP et al

Filing 81

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Denying 78 Motion for Reconsideration. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

WALTER BURNS and ALICE BURNS,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7
8
9

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Docket No. 78)

v.
FIRST AMERICAN TRUSTEE SERVICING
SOLUTIONS, LLP; WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A.; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDER;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; LIBERTY TITLE
COMPANY; WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE
CO.; and AMERICAN SECURITIES COMPANY,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 11-0023 CW

Defendants.
/

11
12

Pro se Plaintiffs Walter and Alice Burns move for

13
14

reconsideration of the Court’s April 8, 2011 Order dismissing their

15

case.

16

reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)

17

and 60(b).1

18

The Court interprets Plaintiffs’ motion to seek

A party may seek reconsideration of a final judgment or order

19

pursuant to Rule 59(e) “if the district court: (1) is presented

20

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the

21

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

22

intervening change in controlling law.”

23

Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

24

Rule 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party from a final

25

judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:

26

Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

27
1

28

The April 8 Order was not interlocutory and is therefore not
subject to reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9.

1

neglect;

2

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

3
4
5

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party;

6

(4) the judgment is void;

7

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has
been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is
no longer equitable; or

8
9

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
11
In their current motion, Plaintiffs simply restate their
12
arguments that Defendants Contra Costa County, et al., have held
13
them in involuntary servitude and in a state of peonage.

They

14
offer no basis for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) or 60(b).
15
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
16
(Docket No. 78.)
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: 5/3/2011
20

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
BURNS et al,

Case Number: CV11-00023 CW

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
7
8

FIRST AMERICAN TRUSTEE SERVICING
SOLUTIONS LLP et al,
Defendant.

/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

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 3, 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.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Alice Burns
1221 Hookston Road
Concord, CA 94518
Walter Burns
1221 Hookston Road
Concord, CA 94518
Dated: May 3, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3