Brophy et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et al
Filing
55
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO VACATE. Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Judgment and Order ECF No. 51 is DENIED. Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.s Motion for Joinder ECF No. 54 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
MARK W. BROPHY, and SUSAN A.
BROPHY,
NO: 2:14-CV-0411-TOR
8
Plaintiffs,
9
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO VACATE
v.
10
11
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;
and NORTHWEST TRUSTEE
SERVICES, INC.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) Motion to Vacate
15
Judgment and Order (ECF No. 51). This matter was submitted for consideration
16
without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and the
17
files herein, and is fully informed.
18
19
20
BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2015, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) filed
a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. ECF No. 29. Plaintiffs’
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 1
1
response to Chase’s motion was due by May 19, 2015. See LR 7.1(b). Plaintiffs
2
did not file a response. On July 31, 2015, the Court granted Chase’s motion. ECF
3
No. 43.
4
On August 19, 2015, Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“NWTS”)
5
filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 44. On October 7, 2015,
6
Plaintiffs filed a late response. ECF No. 47. On October 28, 2015, the Court
7
granted NWTS’s motion (ECF No. 49), and entered final judgment in favor of
8
Chase and NWTS. ECF No. 50.
9
Plaintiffs now move the Court to vacate the orders and judgment in favor of
10
Chase and NWTS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ECF No. 51.
11
Chase filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 52. NWTS filed a motion to join in
12
Chase’s stated opposition.1 ECF No. 54.
13
DISCUSSION
14
Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to Rule 60(b) relief because their unique
15
circumstances directly impacted this case. In support, Plaintiffs claim Mr. Brophy
16
was unavailable for coordination and communications with counsel from June 4,
17
2015 through October 4, 2015. ECF No. 51 at 2. During this time, Plaintiffs claim
18
19
20
1
The Court grants this motion and recognizes, for the same reasons as stated in
Chase’s opposition, NWTS opposes Plaintiffs’ motion.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 2
1
Mr. Brophy’s job with the U.S. Forest Service required he “work six days a week
2
and 9-14 hours per day” on firefighting operations in California, Nevada and
3
Oregon. Id. Plaintiffs assert his schedule “did not allow him to return to Spokane
4
at any time during that time period or to be in regular communication with
5
counsel.” Id. Plaintiffs argue these “extraordinary duties Mr. Brophy was required
6
to perform” directly impacted this case. Id. at 3.
7
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides:
8
13
[T]he court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic, misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying its
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that
justifies relief.
14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiffs’ motion is based upon subsection one and six. See
15
ECF No. 51 at 3-4. However, “[t]hese provisions are mutually exclusive,” and
16
thus a party who failed to take action due to excusable neglect may not seek relief
17
by resorting to subsection six. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.
18
P’ship., 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993) (citing Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition
19
Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 n.11 (1988)).
9
10
11
12
20
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 3
1
Because the circumstances described by Plaintiffs sound of neglect, the
2
Court finds a Rule 60(b)(1) analysis is appropriate. Under Rule 60(b)(1), “the
3
determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on
4
at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the
5
length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for
6
the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. United
7
States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Inv.
8
Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 395. A Rule 60(b)(1) motion must be made within a
9
“reasonable time” and no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order.
10
11
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
Here, a balancing of the Rule 60(b)(1) factors weigh against granting
12
Plaintiffs’ instant motion. First, Plaintiffs make no effort to discuss the first two
13
factors and have not established that Chase and NWTS would not be unduly
14
prejudiced or that this litigation would not be adversely impacted if the judgment is
15
vacated. The Court finds the adverse effect on the Defendants and the litigation
16
would be significant if Plaintiffs’ instant motion was granted. The present action is
17
the second time the Plaintiffs have sued the Defendants on these claims in this
18
Court. In the first action, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary
19
dismissal and the case was dismissed without prejudice on August 22, 2014. See
20
Brophy v. JP Morgan National Association, et al., case no. 2:13-CV-0293-TOR,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 4
1
ECF Nos. 66, 67. Plaintiffs initiated this action three months later. See ECF No. 1
2
at 2 (Notice of Removal stating Plaintiffs filed the instant action in Spokane
3
County Superior Court on or about October 27, 2014). Principles of equity prevent
4
Plaintiffs from once again litigating claims that they have twice failed to litigate
5
properly.
6
Second, Plaintiffs do not provide a legitimate reason for the delay. The
7
proffered reason, that Mr. Brophy was unavailable to communicate and coordinate
8
with counsel, does not adequately explain why counsel did not request extensions
9
of time from the Court or instead communicate and coordinate with Mrs. Brophy
10
while Mr. Brophy was away. Moreover, according to Plaintiffs, Mr. Brophy’s
11
unavailability began on June 4, 2015, see ECF No. 51 at 2, several weeks after
12
their May 19, 2015 deadline to respond to Chase’s motion for summary judgment.
13
Also, Plaintiffs did file a response, albeit a late response, to NWTS’s motion for
14
summary judgment on October 7, 2015, see ECF No. 47, three days after Mr.
15
Brophy’s return, see ECF No. 51 at 2, allowing counsel time to coordinate with her
16
clients.
17
Last, the Court finds that even if Plaintiffs have acted in good faith, this is
18
not sufficient to tip the balance of factors in their favor. Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion is
19
denied.
20
///
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 5
1
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2
1. Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Judgment and Order (ECF No. 51) is DENIED.
3
2. Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.’s Motion for Joinder (ECF No.
4
54) is GRANTED.
5
The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and
6
7
furnish copies to counsel.
Dated December 23, 2015.
8
9
10
11
THOMAS O. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 6
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?