Kelly et al v. U.S. Bank et al

Filing 210

OPINION AND ORDER. I do not find any facts or law to support such a contention. Therefore, Ms. Kelly's Rejection (#206), construed as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED. Signed on 7/20/2010 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Kelly et al v. U.S. Bank et al

Doc. 210

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

ROBERTA KELLY and D. LAWRENCE OLSTAD, No. CV 08-1421-AC Plaintiffs, OPINION & ORDER v. U.S. BANK; BISHOP, WHITE & MARSHALL, P.S., a Washington Professional Services Company; and KRISTA WHITE, Defendants.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Third-party Plaintiff, CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., an inactive Oregon corporation; CREDIT CARD RECEIVABLES FUND INCORPORATED, an Ohio corporation dba UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS; ZB LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership dba UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Third-party Defendants, MOSMAN, J., On July 16, 2010, I adopted Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation PAGE 1 - OPINION & ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

("F&R") (#188) in the above-captioned case and I granted defendant U.S. Bank's Motion for Sanctions (#100), Second Motion for Sanctions (#109), and Third Motion for Sanctions (#155). In response to that Order, plaintiff Roberta Kelly filed a Rejection (#206) along with a declaration requesting that I vacate the Opinion & Order (#202). I construe the Rejection as a motion for reconsideration and I review it accordingly. DISCUSSION Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is appropriate "if (1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law." Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). Ms. Kelly does not present new evidence or argue that an intervening change in the law warrants a different decision. Ms. Kelly presumably bases her motion on an argument that this Court committed clear error or made a manifestly unjust decision. I do not find any facts or law to support such a contention. Therefore, Ms. Kelly's Rejection (#206), construed as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2010.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court

PAGE 2 - OPINION & ORDER