Congdon v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

Filing 34

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 32 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e), signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

BRENDA CONGDON,
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )

CASE NO. C16-1629RSL

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER
OR AMEND JUDGMENT

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Notice of Motion and Motion to

17

Alter or Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e).” Dkt. # 32. Having reviewed the

18

memoranda submitted by the parties, the second proposed amended complaint, and the

19

remainder of the record, the Court finds as follows:

20

Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration of the Court’s substantive rulings is warranted only

21

if “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court

22

committed clear error or make an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an

23

intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat. Ins. C. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555

24

F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). The rule “may not be used to raise arguments . . . for the first

25
26

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER
OR AMEND JUDGMENT - 1

1

time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll v.

2

Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff’s arguments were either raised in her

3

motion to amend the complaint (and considered when the Court denied that motion) or

4

waived.

5

The motion to alter or amend judgment is hereby DENIED.

6
7

Dated this 24th day of August, 2017.

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER
OR AMEND JUDGMENT - 2