OneWest Bank, FSB v. McDonald
ORDER. ORDERED that to the extent "Defendant Bruce C. McDonalds Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Case to the Honorable Richard P. Matsch" 10 could be deemed a motion for reconsideration of my Order of Transfer, it is DENIED by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 01/31/14. (jhawk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02672-RPM
ONEWEST BANK, FSB, a Delaware corporation,
BRUCE C. MCDONALD,
THIS MATTER comes before the Court in connection with my Order to Transfer
filed on October 4, 2013, transferring the case to Judge Richard P. Matsch (ECF Nos. 6
and 7.) The Order granted a motion to transfer the case to Judge Matsch filed by
Plaintiff on October 1, 2013 (ECF No. 3.) Despite the granting of the motion to transfer
on October 4, 2013, Defendant filed a response to the motion to transfer on October 30,
2013, wherein he objected to the transfer. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff then filed a reply
stating that Defendant’s response should be considered a request for reconsideration of
the transfer order. As these documents implicate the Order of Transfer I signed, I will
address them even though the case is currently assigned to Judge Matsch.
While I believe that both the response and the reply to the motion to transfer are
moot given my Order of Transfer of October 4, 2013, I deny the objection to the motion
to transfer in Defendant’s response to the extent the response could be deemed a
motion for reconsideration. Since the Order to Transfer was an interlocutory order, it is
subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment. Raytheon Constructors,
Inc. v. Asarco Inc., 368 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, “as a practical
matter, ‘[t]o succeed in a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or law of a
strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.’” Nat. Bus.
Brokers, Ltd. v. Jim Williamson Prod., Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1256 (D. Colo. 2000)
I find that Defendant did not present facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
to convince or induce me to reverse my Order of Transfer. Indeed, he failed to present
any substantive argument why this matter should not have been transferred to Judge
Matsch, other than mere conjecture. Defendant also does not demonstrate “manifest
error of law or fact” or present newly discovered evidence. Nat. Bus. Brokers, 115
F. Supp. 2d at 1256.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that to the extent “Defendant Bruce C. McDonald’s Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Case to the Honorable Richard P. Matsch” filed October
30, 2013 (ECF No. 10) could be deemed a motion for reconsideration of my Order of
Transfer, it is DENIED.
Dated: January 31, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?