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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?