Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00095/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00095-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
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

Laurie F. Wright, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chase Home Finance LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-00095-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for a new trial and motion to amend her

complaint (doc. 40). After we granted in part a motion to extend time for plaintiff to respond

to defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's deadline to respond was March 2,

2012. Plaintiff did not respond. Accordingly, on March 9, 2012 we entered an order

granting summary judgment in favor of defendant (doc. 36). The Clerk entered judgment the

same day (doc. 37). This motion was filed on April 6, 2012.

Plaintiff moves for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59, Fed. R. Civ. P. This rule is

inapplicable to plaintiff's situation, as no trial was ever held. If we construe this motion as

a motion for reconsideration of our order granting summary judgment, it is untimely. LRCiv

7.2(g)(2) requires motions for reconsideration to be filed within fourteen days after the

challenged order is filed, unless good cause is shown. Plaintiff has not shown good cause

for filing the motion late, nor has she shown "manifest error or a showing of new facts or

legal authority" that would justify our granting the motion. See id. 7.2(g)(1). Construing the

Case 2:11-cv-00095-FJM Document 41 Filed 04/11/12 Page 1 of 2
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 -

motion as one for relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., we find that

plaintiff has not shown "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect," or any other

reason, that would justify setting aside the judgment. See id. Plaintiff admits that she was

aware of the deadline to file her response to the motion for summary judgment, but did not

file either a response or a second motion for extension of time prior to our order granting

summary judgment (which was issued a full week after plaintiff's response was due). Even

if plaintiff was looking for a lawyer at the time, this does not excuse failing to meet a filing

deadline. 

Next, plaintiff moves for a new trial against other defendants she named in her second

amended complaint. At the Rule 16 scheduling conference, we dismissed all defendants

other than Chase (doc. 21). To the extent that plaintiff now wishes to pursue claims against

these other defendants, we remind plaintiff that our dismissal of these defendants was

without prejudice. Finally, plaintiff moves to amend her complaint. Our Rule 16 scheduling

order, issued on August 4, 2011, stated that no further amendments to the complaint would

be permitted (doc. 22). Moreover, the Clerk has already entered judgment in this case. It is

too late for plaintiff to amend her complaint in this action.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for a new trial and motion to amend

her complaint (doc. 40).

DATED this 11th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00095-FJM Document 41 Filed 04/11/12 Page 2 of 2