Bonjorni et al v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

Filing 23

ORDER denying pltfs' 22 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

_______________________________________
)
ROBERT C. BONJORNI, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No. C11-1841RSL
ORDER DENYING
RECONSIDERATION

13

On April 2, 2012, plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Court to Reconsider Order of
14

Dismissal and Motion for Leave to Supplement and Amend Complaint” in the above-captioned
15

matter. Dkt. # 22. Motions for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days of the date of
16

the Order at issue and, even when timely filed, are disfavored in this district. Local Civil Rule
17

7(h). Plaintiffs offer no explanation for their tardy filing. The motion for reconsideration is
18

therefore denied as untimely.
19

Nor have plaintiffs shown “manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or
20

legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier without
21

reasonable diligence.” Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Plaintiffs argue that a consent decree to which
22

defendant is a party may be relevant to this case, but make no attempt to explain its relevance, to
23

provide a proposed amended pleading, or to otherwise show that reconsideration and/or
24

amendment would be anything but futile.1 Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed for a number of

25
26
1

Instead, plaintiffs make sweeping statements that convey no actual information, such as
providing a summary of mortgage litigation around the country “to present some of the issues that are
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

1

reasons, and none of them could be cured by amendment.

2
3
4

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and/or
amendment is DENIED.

5

Dated this 4th day of April, 2012.
6
7

A

8

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
part of the issues that will be part of the recently discovered information we pray the Court will allow in
the requested supplemental pleading.” Dkt. # 22 at 4.
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

-2-