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)

Download PDF
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

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?