Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01656/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01656-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jay Levine and Lisa Levine, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Downey Savings and Loan F.A. and/or

U.S. Bank N.A., DSL Service Company

and Tiffany & Bosco as Successor Trustee

including Michael A. Bosco Jr., Attorney

at Law, National City Bank, MERS,

DOES 1-250, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1656-PHX-JAT

ORDER

In an Order docketed on November 25, 2009 (Doc. #38), the Court granted

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss this case. The Court dismissed certain Counts without leave

to amend, but gave Plaintiffs leave to restate other Counts in an amended complaint. The

Court gave Plaintiffs thirty days from the date of the Order to file an amended complaint.

(Doc. #38, p.11.) The Court instructed the Clerk to enter a judgment of dismissal without

further notice to Plaintiffs if Plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

(Id.) Plaintiffs have never filed an amended complaint. 

Case 2:09-cv-01656-JAT Document 52 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Although the Order was signed on November 24, 2009, the Clerk’s office did not

docket the Order until November 25, 2009.

- 2 -

Plaintiffs did file a Motion to Vacate (Doc. #42) the November 24, 20091

 Order

granting the Motions to Dismiss. The Court will construe the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate

as a motion for reconsideration. Generally, motions for reconsideration are appropriate only

if: 1) the movant presents newly discovered evidence; 2) the Court committed clear error or

the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or 3) an intervening change in controlling law has

occurred. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

(9th Cir. 1993). The Court ordinarily will deny “a motion for reconsideration of an Order

absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not

have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule of Civil

Procedure 7.2(g)(1).

The Court finds no grounds for reconsidering its earlier Order. Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Vacate is based on their mistaken belief that an attorney must file a separate document titled

“Notice of Appearance” in order to file anything or appear before the undersigned. Plaintiff

first cites to an Arizona Rule of Court for the Notice of Appearance requirement. But, as

Defendants U.S. Bank and DSL Service Company point out, under the Erie doctrine, a

federal court applies federal procedural law when sitting in diversity. Feldman v. Allstate

Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 2003). The Arizona Rule cited by Plaintiffs is a

procedural rule, not substantive law.

Further, the Local Rule of Civil Procedure cited by Plaintiffs in their Reply, Rule 83.5,

has nothing to do with attorney appearances. Perhaps Plaintiffs meant to cite Local Rule

83.3, which provides that “Except as provided below, no attorney shall appear in any action

or file anything in any action without first appearing as counsel of record.” But even this

Rule does not require an attorney to file a separate Notice of Appearance. Defense attorneys

have properly “appeared” in this case through their filings. 

Case 2:09-cv-01656-JAT Document 52 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiffs could have complied with the Court’s Order to file an amended complaint

and still filed a motion for reconsideration. 

- 3 -

The Court therefore will deny the Motion to Vacate. The Court also will not enter a

default judgment against Defendants because they have properly appeared. Nor will the

Court impose sanctions on defense counsel.

The Court instructed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the

November 25, 2009 Order. The Court warned Plaintiffs that if they did not file the amended

complaint, the Clerk would dismiss this case without further notice. Plaintiffs ignored that

warning and chose not to file an amended complaint.2

 Because Plaintiffs failed to file an

amended complaint within the required time, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to

comply with a Court Order.

IT IS ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate (Doc. #42).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment and

for Sanctions (Doc. #50).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this case in its entirety and denying any

pending motions as moot. 

DATED this 2nd day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01656-JAT Document 52 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 3