Hover et al v Seattle-First National Bank et al
Filing
29
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 27 Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's order of dismissal. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH) (cc: Plaintiffs via first class mail)
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
10
LYNN DALE HOVER AND MILA JEAN
HOVER,
CASE NO. C18-0022-JCC
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
v.
12
13
SEATTLE FIRST NATIONAL BANK, et
al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ objections and motion to alter/amend
17
the Court’s order of dismissal (Dkt. No. 27). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the
18
relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for
19
the reasons explained herein.
20
On April 6, 2018, the Court granted Defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC’s
21
(“Nationstar”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), and Federal National
22
Mortgage Association’s (“Fannie Mae”) motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiffs’ filed the
23
present motion on May 2, 2018, objecting to the Court’s ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
24
Procedure 46 and moving to amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). (Dkt. No. 27 at 3.) Rule
25
26
ORDER
C18-0022-JCC
PAGE - 1
1
59(e) provides no recourse to Plaintiffs, as no judgment has issued in this matter. 1 The Court
2
construes Plaintiffs’ objections under Rule 46 as a motion for reconsideration. Such motions are
3
disfavored and must be filed within 14 days of the posting of an order. See W.D. Wash. Local
4
Civ. R. 7(h). Plaintiffs filed their objections 28 days after the posting of the Court’s order of
5
dismissal. The motion is therefore untimely. 2
6
7
8
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the Court’s order of
dismissal (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED.
DATED this 4th day of June 2018.
A
9
10
11
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
The challenged order dismissed claims against only three of seven named defendants.
(Dkt. No. 26.)
2
Plaintiffs’ motion also fails on the merits. They establish no manifest error of law, new
evidence, manifest injustice, or change in the law that could support amendment or
reconsideration of the Court’s decision. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th
Cir. 2011) (stating standard for Rule 59(e) motion); W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1).
ORDER
C18-0022-JCC
PAGE - 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?