ORDER

ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.

Eric and Fred Mesi obtained a loan from Washington Mutual Bank for $280,334, secured by a deed of trust. The property was later transferred to Betty and Fred Mesi. The deed of trust was transferred to Bank of America. On February 4, 2014, Plaintiffs sued Defendants in Nevada state court for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, unfair business practices, and to quiet title and cancel instruments. On October 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which asserted various violations of state and federal law. Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank ("Chase") removed the case to this Court. The Court then granted Defendants' motions to dismiss, with leave to amend in part no later than April 9, 2016, and denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed without amending, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In June 2016, after the mandate issued, the Court denied a motion to reconsider that had been filed and fully briefed in the meantime. In July 2017, after more than a year with no filings by any party, the Court closed the case and entered judgment in favor of Defendants.

On August 11, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to "dismiss the judgment and reopen the case." (ECF Nos. 69, 70.) The Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiffs had failed to identify any proper basis for disturbing the judgment, whether under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. (See Order, ECF No. 78.) Since that time, Plaintiffs have filed four additional motions, two of which invoke Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 and request en banc review of the Court's orders, (ECF Nos. 80, 84), one of which requests that Defendants' responses to the motions under FRAP 35 be stricken, (ECF No. 88), and one of which seeks to remedy an alleged Fourteenth Amendment violation by Defendants, (ECF No. 96). The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' various motions and finds them to be procedurally improper and legally frivolous. Moreover, Plaintiffs' motions repeat many of the same points raised in earlier filings, and do not articulate a cognizable basis for amending, altering, or otherwise granting relief from the final judgment in this case.

Therefore, Plaintiffs' motions must be denied. The Court further cautions Plaintiffs that the continued filing of baseless or improper motions in this closed case may subject them to the imposition of sanctions.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions (ECF Nos. 80, 84, 88, 96) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.