Robertson v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC et al

Filing 203

ORDER denying 202 MOTION for Reconsideration 201 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Duncan K Robertson; by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 DUNCAN K ROBERTSON, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C12-2017-MJP ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER v. GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 17 202.) Having reviewed the motion and all related papers, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request 18 for reconsideration of the order on summary judgment (Dkt. No. 201). 19 Under Local Rule 7(h), “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LR 7(h). “The 20 court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior 21 ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its 22 attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.; see also Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 23 Pharma, 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)(finding a motion for reconsideration warranted only 24 when a district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER1 1 when there is an intervening change in the controlling law). Plaintiff fails to acknowledge this 2 standard. He instead suggests—for the first time—the Could should have remanded the case 3 once the claims had been dismissed. He essential makes arguments that should have been made 4 in the response to the motion for summary judgment. To the extend there maybe manifest error 5 in the Court’s decision, the Court considers the arguments raised in the motion for 6 reconsideration. As discussed below, the Court finds no manifest error. 7 Plaintiff erroneously argues the case should have been remanded to state court following 8 this Court’s decision that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims under the Deed of Trust Act 9 (“DTA”). (Dkt. No. 202 at 5.) Plaintiff conflates his lack of standing to bring a DTA claim with 10 Article III standing. See 32A Am. Jur. 2d Federal Courts § 590. His lack of standing on the 11 DTA claim has no affect on this Court’s jurisdiction over his other claims. As such, there is no 12 error. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). (Dkt. No. 82.) In the same vein, Plaintiff argues “whereas all defendants have now been dismissed on 13 14 identical claims to thise brought against in forum defendant LSI Title Agency, Inc., remand is 15 also required under Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1044-45…” (Dkt. No. 202 at 7.) Plaintiff’s argument is 16 flawed in two respects. First, all claims and defendant’s have not been dismissed in this case: 17 only some of the claims against the GMAC defendants have been addressed, pending the 18 resolution of GMAC’s bankruptcy filing. (Dkt. Nos. 55, 149.) Second, Hunter v. Philip Morris 19 USA, 582 F.3d 1039, addressed a district court’s preemption ruling not the circumstance present 20 here. 21 In sum, the Court finds no manifest error or other grounds warranting reconsideration. 22 The motion is DENIED. 23 // 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER2 1 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 2 Dated this 11th day of June, 2014. 3 A 4 5 Marsha J. Pechman Chief United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER3

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?