Wilde v. Flagstar Bank FSB et al

Filing 27

ORDER Denying Motion to Amend Judgment (Dkt. 24 ). Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/7/2019. (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT WILDE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND JUDGMENT [Dkt. 24]

Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 18cv1370-LAB (BGS)

vs.
FLAGSTAR BANK FSB., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

In March, this Court dismissed with prejudice Robert Wilde’s claims against

16

Defendant Flagstar Bank on the basis that he failed to comply with his loan’s notice-and-

17

cure provision prior to filing suit. Wilde now asks the Court to amend the judgment to a

18

dismissal without prejudice, arguing that he has since complied with the loan’s notice-

19

and-cure provision. In the Ninth Circuit, a motion to alter or amend a judgment under

20

Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

21

conservation of judicial resources.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014).

22

A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it “is presented with newly discovered

23

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling

24

law.” Id. (emphasis in original). Wilde hasn’t shown that any of those reasons are present

25

here, so his motion to amend the judgment is DENIED. Dkt. 24.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2019
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
Chief United States District Judge

-1-