Emiabata et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company NA/JP Morgan Chase (SLS) et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiffs via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

PHILIP EMIABATA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
v.
12
13
14

CASE NO. C17-1302JLR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON TRUST COMPANY
NA/JP MORGAN CHASE (SLS), et
al.,

15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Before the court is Plaintiffs Philip Emiabata and Sylvia Emiabata’s (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) motion for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing their complaint
without prejudice and without leave to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
(MFR (Dkt. # 9); see also Order (Dkt. # 7).) The court has reviewed the motion, the
relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court
denies the motion.

ORDER - 1

1

In its order, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject matter

2

jurisdiction. (Order at 3-7.) Plaintiffs invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction (see

3

Compl. (Dkt. # 5) at 3), but the court found that Plaintiffs had failed to properly alleged

4

complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendants (Order at 4). The

5

court did not permit Plaintiffs to amend their complaint because Plaintiffs’ claim, which

6

relates to property located in Texas, is also barred by the local action doctrine. (Id. at

7

4-6.) Accordingly, the court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

8

without prejudice and without leave to amend. (See id. at 6-7.) Plaintiffs ask the court to

9

reconsider this ruling. (See generally MFR.)

10

Plaintiffs do not identify the legal basis for their motion for reconsideration. (See

11

generally id.) Nevertheless, “[c]ourts in this circuit have an obligation to give a liberal

12

construction to the filings of pro se litigants.” Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241

13

(9th Cir. 2013). Given this obligation, the court liberally construes Plaintiffs’ motion as

14

one under Local Rule LCR 7(h). See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). Pursuant to

15

the Local Rules of the Western District of Washington, motions for reconsideration are

16

disfavored, and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in

17

the prior ruling, or (b) new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to

18

the attention of the court earlier with reasonable diligence. Id.

19

In addition, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court may alter or

20

amend a judgment where (1) the court is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2)

21

the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there

22

ORDER - 2

1

is an intervening change in controlling law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

2

Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Finally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may relieve a party
from an order for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248
11
F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (construing a “motion for reconsideration” filed past the
12
deadline as a Rule 60(b) motion).
13
Plaintiffs offer no new or additional legal or factual grounds or any other basis that
14
would justify revisiting or reconsidering the court’s prior order under any of the
15
foregoing standards. (See MFR.) Finding no basis for reconsidering its prior order, the
16
court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. # 9).
17
Dated this 24th day of October, 2017.
18

20

A

21

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

19

22

ORDER - 3