City of Edmonds v. Riedlinger
Filing
9
ORDER denying 8 Motion to Vacate. To the extent the author of the motion for relief seeks reconsideration of the remand order, it is denied on the merits and as untimely. by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(CDA)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
_______________________________________
)
CITY OF EDMONDS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
DARY GAIL RIEDLINGER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)
No. MC17-0018RSL
ORDER
13
14
This matter comes before the Court on a “Motion for Relief from Order of Remand
15
(FRCP 60(d)(3)); or, For Additional Findings (FRCPO 52(b)).” Dkt. # 8. Rule 60(b)(3) is
16
inapplicable: no opposing party appeared or participated in this matter, so there could not be
17
“fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” The defects in the removal
18
petition were plain from the face of the document.1 Although an array of statutes was mentioned
19
in the notice of removal, only Chapter 89 of Title 28, related to “Removal of Cases from State
20
Courts,” provides authority for the power to remove an on-going state criminal action. To the
21
extent the author of the motion for relief seeks reconsideration of the remand order, it is
22
DENIED on the merits and as untimely.
23
24
25
26
1
While the novelty of a private party attempting to remove an on-going criminal case to federal
court caused confusion in the Clerk’s Office, the filing was accepted and timely considered based on the
information provided.
ORDER
1
Dated this 31st day of March, 2017.
2
A
Robert S. Lasnik
3
United States District Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?