Mesi et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying ECF No. 55 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/7/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

1
2
3
4

ERIC MESI AND BETTY MESI,
Plaintiffs,

5

vs.

6
7

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK et al.,

8

Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:15-cv-00555-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

10
11

This case arises out of a disputed property foreclosure. Plaintiffs move the Court to

12

reconsider its order dismissing the case (ECF No. 55). For the reasons given herein, the motion is

13

denied.

14
15

I.

Plaintiffs Eric Mesi and Betty Mesi allege that Defendants violated numerous state and

16
17
18

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

federal laws by engaging in fraudulent and unfair practices. On March 10, 2016, the Court
granted Defendants motions to dismiss the case, while giving Plaintiffs leave to amend within

19

thirty days. (See ECF No. 53). On March 21, 2016, Plaintiffs filed objections to the order. (See
20
21

ECF No. 54). On March 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to reconsider the order. On

22

April 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the same order. (See ECF No. 56).

23

II.

24

LEGAL STANDARDS
Granting a motion to reconsider is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

25

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934,
26
27

945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[4]

28

(3d ed. 2000)). A motion to reconsider “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
1

1

for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id.

2

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

3

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

4
5

an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. In some cases, “other, highly unusual,

6
7
8

circumstances” may warrant reconsideration.” ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263.
III.

9
10

ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs have not presented any reason for the Court to reconsider its order dismissing

the case. They argue that the Court misconstrued the facts and their claims. As the Court noted in

11
12

its order, “Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains numerous claims which are difficult to

13

decipher. Plaintiffs provide scattered and vague facts and draw few connections between the

14

facts and the alleged violations of federal and state law.” (Order, 3, ECF No. 53). The Court gave

15

Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to improve the strength and clarity of their claims, but

16

they chose not to do so. Their motion to reconsider simply restates their allegations and fails to
17
18
19

present newly discovered evidence, show clear error or manifest injustice, or indicate an
intervening change in the law.
The Court notes that “[o]nce a notice of appeal is filed, the district court is divested of

20
21
22

jurisdiction over the matters being appealed.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc.,
242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). However, in this circumstance, “the court may: (1) defer

23
24

considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if

25

the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.” Fed.

26

R. Civ. P. 62.1(a). Thus, the Court elects to deny the motion.

27

///

28

2

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 55) is DENIED.
Dated: June 7, 2016.
Dated this 24th day of April 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3