Erickson v. Long Beach Mortgage Co

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JOHN E. ERICKSON; SHELLEY A.

11 ERICKSON; SHELLY’S TOTAL BODY No. 2:10-CV-01423-SAB WORKS DAY SPA/SHELLY’S SUNTAN PARLOR, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. ORDER DISMISSING LONG BEACH MORTGAGE CO.; MOTIONS FOR WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; RECONSIDERATION CHASE BANK; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, 20 Defendants.

22 Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motions for Reconsideration, ECF Nos. 128 and 130. Plaintiffs are represented pro se. Defendants are represented by Fred B.

24 Burnside and Joshua A. Rataezyk. The motions were considered without oral argument.

26 Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch.

3 Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch.

7 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263).

8 “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

13 Plaintiffs did not meet the standard for reconsideration outlined in case law.

14 Plaintiffs’ briefing is somewhat difficult to follow, but in the end, it provides no new evidence, it does not show clear error or a decision that is manifestly unjust, and there is no intervening change in controlling law on this matter. Being fully informed, the Court denies both motions.

18 // // // // // // // // // // // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motions for Reconsideration, ECF No. 128, and ECF No. 130, are DENIED.

2. The case remains closed.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, forward copies to counsel, and close the file.

DATED this 14th day of February 2024.

9 ‘ 10 _Sfuckyl eta 11 Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge ORDER PNILCMISSING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION #2