Lyall v. U S Bank National Assocation et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 25 Motion to Vacate signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (PM)
THE HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
MARTA D. LYALL,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; TRUMAN TITLE 2013 )
SC3 TITLE TRUST; TRUMAN
CAPITAL ADVISORS, LP;
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT )
SERVICES, LLC; BANK OF AMERICA, )
N.A.; DITECH HOME LOAN
SERVICING; CWABS MASTER
TRUST, REVOLVING HOME EQUITY )
LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES,
SERIES 2004-"O"; CARNEGIE
MELLON UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY )
OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE; DISPUTE RESOLUTION )
CENTER OF KING COUNTY; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-100,
Case No: 17-00472-RAJ
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate. Dkt. # 25.
The Motion is premised on Plaintiff’s belief that the Court was mistaken to conclude that
Plaintiff failed to check her spam folder, or failed to diligently prosecute her case. See,
generally, Dkt. # 25. Though Plaintiff did not make these statements in her Motion for
ORDER - 1
Extension of Time, Dkt. # 19, she did make these statements in her Notices to the Court.
Dkt. ## 17, 18. The Court was not mistaken; the Court merely reiterated statements made
to it by Plaintiff.
Even if the Court found that the Motion had merit, it could not grant the Motion in
light of Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal. Dkt. # 23. Upon this notice, the Court was divested
of jurisdiction “over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127
F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997). Specifically, Plaintiff appeals the Court’s Order
granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and therefore the Court is divested of
jurisdiction to rule on the Motion to Vacate that Order.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate.
Dkt. # 25.
Dated this 9th day of June, 2017.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
ORDER - 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?