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)

Download PDF
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?