Pregana et al v. Citimortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 17 . Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 6/17/2014. ~ Accordingly, the Court hereby grants in part the Motion for Reconsideration and orders the judgment vacated and the case reopened. To the extent Plaintiffs seek recusal of the undersigned, the request is denied. In light of the above, there is no basis for disqualification as a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would not conclude that the Court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I

CIVIL NO. 14-00226 DKW-KSC

BESSIE LEE-FREITAS PREGANA;
BRIAN JOSEPH PREGANA, SR.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; STEVEN T.
IWAMURA; ROBERT M. EHRHORN,
JR.; KEN OHARA; LORI K. STIBB,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On June 12, 2014, the Court entered an order dismissing the case
without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. At the time the Court entered the
June 12, 2014 Order, the court docket did not reflect Plaintiffs’ payment of the filing
fee, as directed in an earlier May 20, 2014 Order. On June 16, 2014, Plaintiffs filed
a Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Case, stating that they paid the
filing fee on June 2, 2014. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the Court finds this
matter suitable for disposition without a hearing.
1

At the time Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Reconsideration on June 16,
2014, the court docket still did not reflect Plaintiffs’ payment of the filing fee.
Given Plaintiffs representation to the contrary, however, the Court inquired with the
Clerk of Court, and learned that, due to an inadvertent error, Plaintiffs’ payment of
the filing fee on June 2, 2014 was not recorded in the court docket. After the filing
of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, the Clerk of Court corrected the record to
reflect payment of the filing fee on June 2, 2014. Accordingly, the Court hereby
grants in part the Motion for Reconsideration and orders the judgment vacated and
the case reopened. See White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw.
2006).
To the extent Plaintiffs seek recusal of the undersigned, the request is
denied. In light of the above, there is no basis for disqualification as a reasonable
person with knowledge of all the facts would not conclude that the Court’s
//

//

//

//

//

//

2

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. § 455; Pesnell v.
Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 17, 2014 at Honolulu, Hawai’i.

Pregana v. CitiMortgage, et al.; Civ No. 14-00226 DKW-KSC; ORDER
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

3