Wilde v. Flagstar Bank FSB, 18cv1370-LAB (BGS). (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190508b89
Visitors: 25
Filed: May 07, 2019
Latest Update: May 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT [Dkt. 24] LARRY ALAN BURNS , Chief District Judge . In March, this Court dismissed with prejudice Robert Wilde's claims against Defendant Flagstar Bank on the basis that he failed to comply with his loan's notice-and-cure provision prior to filing suit. Wilde now asks the Court to amend the judgment to a dismissal without prejudice, arguing that he has since complied with the loan's notice-and-cure provision. In the Ninth Circuit, a motion to alter o
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT [Dkt. 24] LARRY ALAN BURNS , Chief District Judge . In March, this Court dismissed with prejudice Robert Wilde's claims against Defendant Flagstar Bank on the basis that he failed to comply with his loan's notice-and-cure provision prior to filing suit. Wilde now asks the Court to amend the judgment to a dismissal without prejudice, arguing that he has since complied with the loan's notice-and-cure provision. In the Ninth Circuit, a motion to alter or..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT [Dkt. 24]
LARRY ALAN BURNS, Chief District Judge.
In March, this Court dismissed with prejudice Robert Wilde's claims against Defendant Flagstar Bank on the basis that he failed to comply with his loan's notice-and-cure provision prior to filing suit. Wilde now asks the Court to amend the judgment to a dismissal without prejudice, arguing that he has since complied with the loan's notice-and-cure provision. In the Ninth Circuit, a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it "is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." Id. (emphasis in original). Wilde hasn't shown that any of those reasons are present here, so his motion to amend the judgment is DENIED. Dkt. 24.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
