Nichols v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Filing 79

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 78 Motion for Reconsideration, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 DIANA NICHOLS, 100 EVERGREEN HILL RD., FAIRFIELD, CT, 06824, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 v. 11 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE COPORATION, A RECEIVER FOR WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, 12 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 ) ) CASE NO. C14-1796RSM ) ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) ) ) THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. #78. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its prior ruling granting Defendant’s Motion to 17 Dismiss and dismissing her case in its entirety. Id. Plaintiff argues that this Court committed 18 19 manifest error by declining to dismiss Defendant’s arguments regarding Plaintiff’s loan 20 modification, and by making other erroneous assumptions about the record. Id. 21 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The court will ordinarily 22 deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a 23 24 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention 25 earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). In this case, the Court is not persuaded that it 26 committed manifest error in its ruling. Plaintiff appears to misconstrue the Court’s findings in 27 many respects. For example, Plaintiff states that this Court found she was represented on 28 several transactions by pro bono counsel, which is incorrect, and uses that as the basis of her ORDER PAGE - 1 1 argument that the Court misconstrued the record. Dkt. #78 at 9. However, Plaintiff is citing to 2 a portion of this Court’s Order discussing a different case. See Dkt. #76 at 9. In that portion of 3 the Order, this Court discussed Mills v. Home Equity Group, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 1482 (D.D.C. 4 1994). Id. This Court provided background to the case (including that the plaintiff in that case 5 had been represented by pro bono counsel), which Ms. Nichols has misconstrued as a 6 7 discussion of her and her situation. Compare Dkt. #76 at 9 with Dkt. #78 at 9. 8 Likewise, Plaintiff repeats many of the same arguments pertaining to the loan 9 modification that have already been considered by this Court. See Dkt. #78. The Court 10 allowed Plaintiff to present supplemental evidence pertaining to the loan modification during 11 the oral argument on summary judgment, which the Court then took into consideration in 12 13 making its ruling, and the Court previously considered Plaintiff’s arguments pertaining to 14 Defendant’s affirmative defenses or lack thereof. Dkt. #78. These arguments were rejected for 15 the reasons cited by the Court. Dkt. #76. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 16 persuades the Court that it erred in reaching its conclusions. 17 18 19 20 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #78) is DENIED. DATED this 30 day of May, 2017. 21 22 A 23 24 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 2

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?