Eileen Frances Living Trust et al v. Bank of America et al

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 48 and 50 . Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7
8
9
10

EILEEN FRANCES LIVING TRUST;
EILEEN FRANCES, Trustee, Grantor,
and Principle of the Eileen Frances
Revocable Living Trust; DOUG
LaPLANTE, trustee and Principle of
the Eileen Frances Revocable Living
Trust,

NO: 2:15-CV-227-RMP
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,

11
v.
12
13

BANK OF AMERICA, and
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING,

14

Defendants.

15
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
16
Pursuant to Rule 59(e), ECF No. 48. Plaintiffs filed what appears to be a reply
17
brief regarding ECF No. 48, but noted it as a separate motion, ECF No. 50. The
18
Court construes pro se pleadings liberally and construes ECF No. 50 as a reply
19
brief, and not as a separate motion. Accordingly, both ECF Nos. 48 and 50, which
20
21
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT ~ 1

1

seek identical relief, shall be addressed simultaneously. The Court has considered

2

the motion, the record, and is fully informed.

3

The Court previously dismissed this case with prejudice due to Plaintiffs’

4

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and due to their failure

5

to adhere to Local Rules by responding in a timely manner to a dispositive motion.

6

See ECF No. 47. As detailed in the Court’s Dismissal Order, ECF No. 47,

7

Plaintiffs failed to respond to Bank of America’s third motion to dismiss until two

8

weeks after their deadline to do so, and their late response did not substantively

9

respond to Defendant’s arguments.

10

Despite Plaintiffs’ failure to adhere to Local Rules, the Court reviewed

11

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and analyzed it as if it had been filed on

12

time. As detailed in the Court’s Order, ECF No. 47, Plaintiffs failed to remedy

13

many of the same deficiencies outlined in prior Court Orders as they repeated some

14

of the same language previously identified as problematic. Plaintiffs’ attempts to

15

largely cite the same law with insufficient facts demonstrated that permitting

16

further amendment would be futile.

17

Therefore, pursuant to both Local Rule 7.1 and FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6),

18

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs

19

now move to alter or amend this Court’s Order pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e),

20

arguing that the Court did not understand their claims and erred on issues of law.

21

See ECF No. 48.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT ~ 2

1
2

ANALYSIS
“While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a

3

previous order, the rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

4

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Carroll v. Nakatani,

5

342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s

6

Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)). “Indeed, ‘a motion for reconsideration

7

should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district

8

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if

9

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Id. (quoting Kona

10

Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).

11

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reconsider its prior Order dismissing

12

their Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, ECF No. 47, by asserting that

13

this Court

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

has misapprehended Plaintiffs [sic] position, in its entirety, regarding
reasons for filing their claims against Defendant BOA, and,
additionally, has not properly assessed Plaintiffs [sic] allegations.
Plaintiffs also contend that the Court has erred on issues of controlling
law regarding Local Rule 7.1 (b), Mortgage Servicing, in general, and
Mortgage Loan Modification and RESPA, in particular. Further,
Plaintiffs contend that, in order to prevent manifest injustice, the Courts
[sic] decisions, as applies [sic] to Plaintiff’s [sic] Second Amended
Complaint, must be amended.
ECF No. 48 at 1-2.
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should have permitted another late filing
rather than deeming their failure to respond in a timely manner as consent to the
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT ~ 3

1

dismissal. See ECF No. 48. Their only reason for not adhering to Court deadlines

2

is that they were “tending to the responsibilities of their daily lives.” Id. at 5.

3

Despite Plaintiffs’ failure to provide any just cause for their violations of Local

4

Rules, the Court conducted an alternative analysis, and considered all of their

5

arguments as if their response had been filed on time.

6

Regarding the Court’s alternative analysis, Plaintiffs’ attempts to dispute the

7

substance of the Court’s findings are misplaced in a motion filed pursuant to FED.

8

R. CIV. P. 59(e). Plaintiffs repeatedly quote the Court’s Order, then provide

9

various responses that take issue with the Court’s rulings, calling the Court’s

10

statements “troubling,” and “confusing,” among other things. See ECF No. 48.

11

Plaintiffs’ inability to understand how their claims are legally insufficient, despite

12

the Court’s detailed orders, is not a proper basis for a motion to alter or amend a

13

prior order. Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the propriety of the Court’s rulings are

14

better suited for an appellate court.

15

Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion, ECF No. 48, and their reply brief that

16

was filed as a separate motion, ECF No. 50, the Court finds that Plaintiffs do not

17

provide an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or arguments that

18

would support a finding of clear error in the Court’s determination regarding the

19

substance of Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court finds that it properly dismissed

20

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint due to the deficiencies detailed in the prior

21

Order, ECF No. 47.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT ~ 4

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

2

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e),

3
4
5

ECF No. 48, is DENIED.
2. As ECF No. 50 was filed as a motion seeking the same relief as that
sought in ECF No. 48, ECF No. 50 is also DENIED.

6

3. The hearing set on July 17, 2017 is STRICKEN.

7

The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order, provide copies of

8
9

this Order to counsel and pro se Plaintiffs, and close this case.
DATED this 10th day of July 2017.

10
11
12

s/Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT ~ 5