Williams et al v. National Default Servicing Corporation et al

Filing 91

ORDER Withdrawing 89 Motion, ORDER Vacating 90 Order on Motion. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/28/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Case 2:16-cv-01860-GMN-NJK Document 91 Filed 12/28/20 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8

RONALD WILLIAMS, JANN WILLIAMS,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORP., )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01860-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9

On January 1, 2017, the Court dismissed the claims of Plaintiffs Ronald and Jann

10
11

Williams (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and entered judgment in favor of Defendants National

12

Default Servicing Corporation, Duke Partners II, LLC, Michael A. Bosco, Wendy Van Luven,

13

and Carmen Navejas (collectively, “Defendants”). (See Order, ECF No. 76). Plaintiffs

14

appealed, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s decision. (See

15

Mandate of USCA, ECF No. 84).

16

On July 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order Compelling Department and

17

Federal Agencies Compliance with the “Rights” Accorded the Movants by the Crime Victims’

18

Rights Act, and According to Proof, the Mandatory Restitution Act (“Motion for Order”), (ECF

19

No. 89), which the Court denied. (See Minute Order, ECF No. 90). In response to this denial,

20

Plaintiff Ronald Williams emailed1 the Court indicating that the Motion for Order was misfiled

21

in the present case, and instead, was intended to be filed in 2:20-cv-01320-KJD-NJK.2 The

22
23
24
25

1

Plaintiff Ronald Williams’s email is attached to this Order.

2

The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order, (ECF No. 89), which Ronald Williams claims was
improperly addressed in this case and should have been addressed in 2:20-cv-01320-KJD-NJK, was actually
filed electronically in this case before the other case, 2:20-cv-01320-KJD-NJK, was even opened. (See 2:20-cv01320-KJD-NJK, Notice, ECF No. 2 (showing that the case was filed on July 16, 2020)); (Receipt of Payment,

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:16-cv-01860-GMN-NJK Document 91 Filed 12/28/20 Page 2 of 2

1

Court construes this correspondence as a Motion to Set Aside and Rescind the Court’s Order,

2

(ECF No. 90), due to a clerical error.

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside and Rescind the

5
6

Order, (ECF No. 90), is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Compelling

7

Department and Federal Agencies Compliance with the “Rights” Accorded the Movants by the

8

Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and According to Proof, the Mandatory Restitution Act, (ECF No.

9

89), is WITHDRAWN.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court’s Order, (ECF No. 90), is VACATED.

11

28
DATED this _____ day of December, 2020.

12
13
14

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ECF No. 7). Furthermore, Plaintiffs submitted their Motion for Order without a case number, instead merely
labeling it as “No. _____.” Nevertheless, the Court finds it appropriate to provide relief.

Page 2 of 2