Alexander v. King County, Washington et al
Filing
29
ORDER denying defendants' 28 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
REBECCA ALEXANDER, a single woman,
Plaintiff,
Case No. C17-653-RSM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
v.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, a county
municipality; STATE OF WASHINGTON,
one of the fifty states of the United States;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national
banking association; NORTHWEST
TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., a Washington
corporation; U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for Harborview
Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-12, Mortgage Loan
Pass-through Certificates, Series 2005-12
Trust; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a
foreign entity; JOHN DOE TRUSTEE; JOHN
DOE TRUST; MERS, a foreign corporation,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by
Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”), U.S. Bank National Association, as
Trustee for Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-12, Mortgage Loan Pass-through
27
Certificates, Series 2005-12 Trust (“U.S. Bank”), and Mortgage Electronic Registration
28
Systems, Inc. (“MERS”). Dkt. #28. Defendants move the Court to reconsider its Order
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
1
2
granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand, Dkt. #21, specifically on the issue of an award of fees
and costs under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Id. at 1.
3
This case was removed on April 26, 2017. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand
4
on May 9, 2017, noted for consideration on June 2, 2017. Dkt. #10. In that Motion, Plaintiff
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
requested relief pursuant to § 1447(c). Dkt. #10 at 2. Defendants opposed this Motion, arguing
that remand was not justified, but failed to provide any argument as to why fees and costs under
§1447(c) were inappropriate. See Dkt. #14.
On June 8, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and remanded this
case. Dkt. #21. The Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c), and ordered Plaintiff to request those in a “Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees.”
Id. at 4.
14
Defendants now move for reconsideration of the Court’s Order granting remand,
15
arguing that the Court must have “recognize[d] the objectively reasonable basis on which
16
Defendants based the removal” because the Court “acknowledged the parties’ arguments and
17
18
relevant legal authority addressed in the parties briefs,” but “in the end” the Court somehow
19
concluded that remand was appropriate. Dkt. #28 at 2. Defendants argue that the Court can
20
only award fees under §1447(c) where the removing party lacked an “objectively reasonable”
21
basis for removal. Id. at 3.
22
23
24
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). “The court will ordinarily
deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a
25
showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention
26
earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
1
The Court finds that Defendants’ arguments against §1447(c) fees could and should
2
have been raised in their Response, which was silent on this issue. Defendants do not argue
3
new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with
4
reasonable diligence. Further, Defendants fail to establish that the Court’s award of these fees
5
6
7
was manifest error. The Court has never “recognize[d] the objectively reasonable basis on
which Defendants based the removal,” as argued by Defendants, and thus the award of fees was
8
not contrary to the record. The Court properly found that §1447(c) fees were proper given the
9
lack of a federal cause of action in the pleadings.
10
11
12
13
Accordingly, having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits
attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #28) is DENIED.
14
15
DATED this 26 day of June, 2017.
16
17
18
19
20
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 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?