Pettit v. Pulte Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 79

ORDER that Mr. Pettit's 72 OBJECTION shall be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Defendants' 76 Motion to Strike the Objection is Denied. Defendants shall have 15 days from the date of this order to file any response to the Rule 59(e) motion; Mr. Pettit shall have 7 days thereafter to file any reply brief. Mr. Pettit's 78 Motion to Extend Time to Oppose the Defendants' Motion to Strike is Denied as moot. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/14/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

Ellery J. Pettit,
Case No.: 2-11-cv-00149-JAD-GWF

9

Plaintiff

10

vs.

11

Federal National Mortgage Association;
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.;
Seterus, Inc.,

12

Order Regarding Plaintiff’s
“Objections” to Order Dismissing Case

13

Defendants

14
15

This action arises out of pro se Plaintiff Ellery J. Pettit’s default on his condominium

16

mortgage. After Mr. Pettit disavowed any intention to state a wrongful foreclosure claim, and the

17

amendment of his complaint failed to yield a ripe and cognizable claim for relief, the Court

18

dismissed his declaratory relief action. Doc. 68. A Clerk’s Judgment in favor of the Defendants was

19

entered the following day. Doc. 69. Twenty-seven days later, Mr. Pettit filed a document entitled

20

“Plaintiff’s Objections to Orders and Judgment—FRCP 46” and a notice of appeal. Docs. 72, 73.

21

Defendants ask the Court to strike Mr. Pettit’s objections, Doc. 76, and Mr. Pettit has asked

22

for an enlargement of time to oppose that motion. Doc. 78. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

23

apparently construes Mr. Pettit’s objection as a tolling motion under Rule 4(a)(4) of the Federal

24

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Doc. 75. This Court is of the opinion that the most fair and

25

judicially economical way to handle this “objection” by this pro se plaintiff and handle the

26

Defendants’ motion to strike it is to liberally construe the objection as a timely1 motion to alter or

27
28

1

The motion was filed on the 27th day following the entry of the judgment. See Doc. 72; Fed.
R. Civ. Proc. 59(e); Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv).
1

1

amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Bernhardt v. Los

2

Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging that courts must construe pro se

3

motions and pleadings liberally), and permit the Defendants to respond to the motion on its merits.

4

Accordingly, with good cause appearing:

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Pettit’s Objection [#72] shall be construed as a Rule

6
7

59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Objection [#76] is

8

DENIED; instead, Defendants shall have 15 days from the date of this order within with to file any

9

response to the Rule 59(e) motion; Mr. Pettit shall then have 7 days thereafter to file any reply brief

10

in support of his Rule 59(e) motion. The parties are cautioned that any such brief must comply with

11

Local Rule 7-2 and 7-4.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Pettit’s Motion to Extend Time to oppose the

13

Defendants’ Motion to Strike [#78] is DENIED as moot (because the motion to strike is herein

14

denied).

15
DATED April 14, 2014.
16
17

_________________________________
____________________
_ ____ __ _ __
Jennifer A. Dorsey
Jennifer A Dorsey
nn
e
United States District Judge
United States District Jud
ited
t
st
strict

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2