Lyall v. U S Bank National Assocation et al
ORDER re Plaintiff's 51 Letter to Court Seeking Permission to File Several Motions, by Judge Richard A Jones. (SWT)
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 Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Letter to the Court seeking permission to file
several motions. Dkt. # 51. The Court is also aware of Plaintiff’s ex parte
communications with the Court seeking relief from the Court’s restriction on filing.
MINUTE ORDER - 1
Plaintiff’s prior conduct, outlined in docket 48, necessitated the Court’s action in
requiring her to seek permission before filing additional motions. The Court would
impose the same restriction on any party who abuses the Court’s filing practices. For
these reasons the Court will continue to require Plaintiff to seek permission before filing
any future motions and denies her request to lift the restriction.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Letter meets the standards prescribed by the
Court’s June 14, 2017 Order. The Court responds to Plaintiff’s requests as follows:
New Motion for Reconsideration of Dkt. # 21: DENIED. Motions for
reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest
error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been
brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local R. W.D.
Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1). Plaintiff cannot allege new evidence beyond the fact that the
Ninth Circuit has dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The fact remains that
Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s
proposed motion would be moot because the Court has allowed Plaintiff to amend her
complaint. Therefore, the Court will no longer consider, or in this case reconsider,
motions premised upon Plaintiff’s initial complaint.
New Motion for Reconsideration of Dkt. # 9: DENIED. Plaintiff’s proposed
motion for reconsideration of this Court’s denial is also moot. That TRO was based on
the operative complaint, which is no longer operative. There are no new facts that the
Court can consider with regard to that Order.
New TRO based upon Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint: GRANTED. Plaintiff
may filed a new TRO based upon her Amended Complaint. Defendants shall have time
to respond pursuant to the Local Rules.
Financial defendants are not yet dismissed: The financial defendants’ motion to
dismiss was based upon Plaintiff’s first complaint. They have not yet moved the Court to
MINUTE ORDER - 2
dismiss the relevant claims raised in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
Dated this 19th day of June, 2017.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
MINUTE ORDER - 3
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?