Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01370/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01370-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

- 1 -

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT WILDE, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLAGSTAR BANK FSB., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 18cv1370-LAB (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

AMEND JUDGMENT [Dkt. 24]

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-andcure 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 noticeand-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.

Dated: May 7, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01370-LAB-BGS Document 27 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 1