Alexander v. King County, Washington et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying defendants' 28 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

Download PDF
  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?