Price Legacy Trust v. Bank of America NA et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration ECF No. 32 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

CASSIE ANN TAYLOR,
NO: 13-CV-0369-TOR
Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

11

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A,
NORTHWEST TRUSTEE
SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-100,

12

Defendants.

10

13
14

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.

15

32). This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The

16

Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and files herein, and is fully

17

informed.

18

DISCUSSION

19

A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of

20

Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 1

1

from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.

2

1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with

3

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

4

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at

5

1263.

6

arguments . . . that had not already been raised” in the underlying motion. Taylor

7

v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989).

Reconsideration is properly denied when the movant “present[s] no

8

Plaintiff argues, once again, that Bank of America was bound by the so-

9

called “Settlement Agreement” which purported to terminate Bank of America’s

10

right to foreclose on her property. The Court rejects this argument for the reasons

11

previously stated: the offer was never accepted by Defendants, and, in any event,

12

the agreement fails for lack of valid consideration. ECF No. 28 at 8-11.

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

14

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.

15

The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and

16
17

provide copies to counsel and Plaintiff at her current address of record.
DATED June 19, 2014.

18
19

THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge

20

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2