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)

Download PDF
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?