1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LINDA MARIE AMES, Case No. 23-cv-01080-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION

10 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Re: Dkt. No. 37 11 Defendant.

12 On October 27, 2023, the court transferred this case to the Western District of Washington 13 pursuant to

(a). [Docket No. 36.] The case was electronically transmitted to the 14 Western District of Washington and entered on the docket of that court on October 30, 2023. On 15 the same day, Plaintiff Linda Ames filed a document entitled “Objection to Magistrate’s 16 Recommendation” that she docketed as an “Emergency Motion for Reconsideration” of the Order 17 transferring the case. [Docket No. 37.] 18 This court lost jurisdiction over this case when it was docketed in the Western District of 19 Washington. See Lou v. Belzberg,

(9th Cir. 1987) (holding the “docketing 20 date” is when a transfer under

(a) becomes effective, ending the jurisdiction of 21 the transferor court); Benjamin v. Bixby, No. 1:08-CV-1025 AWI DLB,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009) (holding transferor court lacked jurisdiction to hear motion for 22 reconsideration after the transferee court had docketed the case); LFG Nat. Cap., LLC v. Gary, 23 Williams, Finney, Lewis, Watson & Sperando, P.L., No. CV 11-4538 PSG (PJWX),

8311110, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011) (same). Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to 25 consider Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 26 Even if the court had jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff has not 27 1 Civil Local Rule 7-9 provides that a party may seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration of an 2 || interlocutory order at any time before judgment. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). A motion for reconsideration 3 may be made on one of three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that 4 || which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party 5 applying for reconsideration did not know at the time of the order for which reconsideration is 6 sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the 7 court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before such order. Civ. 8 L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). Plaintiff’s motion does not address any of these bases for reconsideration and g || must be denied on that basis. AES DISTR IC KD v0 10 Ly? CS IT IS SO ORDERED. x 11 iS <s0 ORDERED □□ Dated: October 31, 2023 12 Dp < □□ 13 2 ED ig □ □ | Bae ilar □□□ 14 WHie? Bac fd Ke 15 oN Le 2 16 LO ct OY a STRI

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28