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)

Download PDF
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?