Wright v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 67

ORDER Denying 36 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (PL, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7

No.

BERYL ANN WRIGHT,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

4:16-CV-5155-EFS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;
MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P.;
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP
OF WASHINGTON; SHELLPOINT
MORTGAGE SERVICING, LLC;
AND DOES 1-X,

13
Defendants.
14
15
Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Beryl Ann
16
Wright’s “Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Order Denying
17
Remand, TRO, Prelim. Inj; Motion to Amend Complaint; Motion for Time;
18
Motion to Stay 2/10/17 Sale”, ECF No. 36. The Court has previously
19
addressed the Motion to Amend and Motion for Time portions of the
20
motion. ECF Nos. 46 & 56. The Court now addresses the final remaining
21
portion of that Motion, the Motion to Reconsider. Ms. Wright moves the
22
Court to reconsider its February 2, 2017 Order Denying Plaintiff’s
23
Motion to Remand and for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and
24
Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 30. Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank
25
(Chase)

has

26

ORDER - 1

filed

a

memorandum

in

opposition

to

the

Motion

to

1

Reconsider. ECF No. 49. Having reviewed the pleadings and the file in

2

this matter, the Court is fully informed and denies the Motion.
As

3

an

initial

matter,

Defendant

Quality

Loan

Services

of

4

Washington has informed the Court that all prior Trustee’s Sales for

5

the property at issue have been cancelled and there is no Trustee’s

6

Sale currently pending. ECF Nos. 33 & 34. Accordingly, Ms. Wright’s

7

Motion for Reconsideration of her prior request for injunctive relief

8

is

9

scheduled, the Court finds that reconsideration of its prior order

10

denied

as

moot.

To

the

extent

a

new

Trustee’s

Sale

could

be

denying injunctive relief would be inappropriate.

11

A motion for reconsideration is “appropriate if the district

12

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed

13

clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if

14

there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

15

v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

“[A] motion for

16

reconsideration

should

highly

17

circumstances.”

389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665

18

(9th Cir. 1999).

19

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could

20

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.

21

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

22

not

be

granted,

Sch. Dist. No. 1J

absent

unusual

A motion for reconsideration may not be used to

Id.; Kona

After reviewing the pleadings, the record in this matter, and

23

applicable

authority,

24

Plaintiff has not met the standard for reconsideration.

25

merely

reasserted

26

ORDER - 2

the

prior

Court

is

arguments,

fully

and

informed

has

not

and

finds

that

Plaintiff has

presented

any

new

1

evidence, indicated how the prior ruling was in error, or noted any

2

change in controlling law.

3

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s assertions in her pleadings still do

4

not demonstrate to the Court that remand or injunctive relief is

5

justified.

6

the

7

Wright’s claim has evolved somewhat through subsequent pleadings, the

8

Court continues to find that, based on her complaint, subject matter

9

jurisdiction exists in this Court. See Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l

10

Ass’n of Sec. Dealers Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998),

11

abrogated on other grounds by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith

12

Inc.

13

analyzed on the basis of the pleadings filed at the time of removal

14

without reference to subsequent amendments.”).

15

reasons outlined in its previous order, the Court continues to find

16

that Ms. Wright has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on

17

the

18

temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction.

The appropriateness of remand to state court is based on

substance

v.

of

Manning,

merits,

as

the

136

complaint

S. Ct.

required

for

when

1562

it

(2016)

injunctive

19

1.

filed.

Although

(“[J]urisdiction

relief

Ms.

must

be

In addition, for the

in

the

form

of

a

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

20

was

Plaintiff Beryl Ann Wright’s “Motion for Reconsideration

21

and Relief from Order Denying Remand, TRO, Prelim. Inj;

22

Motion to Amend Complaint; Motion for Time; Motion to Stay

23

2/10/17 Sale,” ECF No. 36, is DENIED IN PART as to the

24

Motion to Reconsider.

25

2.

As all portions of the Motion have now been addressed, no
part of ECF No. 36 remains as a pending motion.

26

ORDER - 3

1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to Plaintiff and all counsel.
DATED this

20th

day of March 2017.

4
s/Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2016\5155.Wright.ord.deny.recon.lc02.docx

ORDER - 4