Mesi et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ERIC MESI et al.,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et
Eric and Fred Mesi obtained a loan from Washington Mutual Bank for $280,334, secured
by a deed of trust. The property was later transferred to Betty and Fred Mesi. The deed of trust
was transferred to Bank of America. On February 4, 2014, Plaintiffs sued Defendants in Nevada
state court for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, unfair business practices, and to quiet title
and cancel instruments. On October 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which
asserted various violations of state and federal law. Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”)
removed the case to this Court. The Court then granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, with
leave to amend in part no later than April 9, 2016, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs appealed without amending, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. In June 2016, after the mandate issued, the Court denied a motion to reconsider that
had been filed and fully briefed in the meantime. In July 2017, after more than a year with no
filings by any party, the Court closed the case and entered judgment in favor of Defendants.
1 of 2
On August 11, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to “dismiss the judgment and reopen the case.”
(ECF Nos. 69, 70.) The Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiffs had failed to identify any
proper basis for disturbing the judgment, whether under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or
60. (See Order, ECF No. 78.) Since that time, Plaintiffs have filed four additional motions, two
of which invoke Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 and request en banc review of the
Court’s orders, (ECF Nos. 80, 84), one of which requests that Defendants’ responses to the
motions under FRAP 35 be stricken, (ECF No. 88), and one of which seeks to remedy an alleged
Fourteenth Amendment violation by Defendants, (ECF No. 96). The Court has reviewed
Plaintiffs’ various motions and finds them to be procedurally improper and legally frivolous.
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ motions repeat many of the same points raised in earlier filings, and do not
articulate a cognizable basis for amending, altering, or otherwise granting relief from the final
judgment in this case.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motions must be denied. The Court further cautions Plaintiffs that
the continued filing of baseless or improper motions in this closed case may subject them to the
imposition of sanctions.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions (ECF Nos. 80, 84, 88, 96) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. February 14, 2018.
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
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?