Mesi et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 99

ORDERED that the motions (ECF Nos. 80 , 84 , 88 , 96 ) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7

ERIC MESI et al.,

8
9
10

Plaintiffs,

3:15-cv-00555-RCJ-WGC

vs.
ORDER

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et
al.,

11
Defendants.

12
13

Eric and Fred Mesi obtained a loan from Washington Mutual Bank for $280,334, secured

14

by a deed of trust. The property was later transferred to Betty and Fred Mesi. The deed of trust

15

was transferred to Bank of America. On February 4, 2014, Plaintiffs sued Defendants in Nevada

16

state court for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, unfair business practices, and to quiet title

17

and cancel instruments. On October 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which

18

asserted various violations of state and federal law. Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”)

19

removed the case to this Court. The Court then granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, with

20

leave to amend in part no later than April 9, 2016, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary

21

judgment. Plaintiffs appealed without amending, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of

22

jurisdiction. In June 2016, after the mandate issued, the Court denied a motion to reconsider that

23

had been filed and fully briefed in the meantime. In July 2017, after more than a year with no

24

filings by any party, the Court closed the case and entered judgment in favor of Defendants.

1 of 2

1

On August 11, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to “dismiss the judgment and reopen the case.”

2

(ECF Nos. 69, 70.) The Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiffs had failed to identify any

3

proper basis for disturbing the judgment, whether under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or

4

60. (See Order, ECF No. 78.) Since that time, Plaintiffs have filed four additional motions, two

5

of which invoke Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 and request en banc review of the

6

Court’s orders, (ECF Nos. 80, 84), one of which requests that Defendants’ responses to the

7

motions under FRAP 35 be stricken, (ECF No. 88), and one of which seeks to remedy an alleged

8

Fourteenth Amendment violation by Defendants, (ECF No. 96). The Court has reviewed

9

Plaintiffs’ various motions and finds them to be procedurally improper and legally frivolous.

10

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ motions repeat many of the same points raised in earlier filings, and do not

11

articulate a cognizable basis for amending, altering, or otherwise granting relief from the final

12

judgment in this case.

13

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motions must be denied. The Court further cautions Plaintiffs that

14

the continued filing of baseless or improper motions in this closed case may subject them to the

15

imposition of sanctions.

16

CONCLUSION

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions (ECF Nos. 80, 84, 88, 96) are DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED. February 14, 2018.

19
20
21

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

22
23
24

2 of 2