Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01115/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01115-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property - Real Estate

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OSCAR VALERO, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BANK OF AMERICAN HOME LOANS, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-01115-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

On May 14, 2013, this court adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations, dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, and closed the case. ECF No. 21. Judgment 

was entered the same day. ECF No. 22. On May 24, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a document that 

this court and the Circuit Court understood to be a notice of appeal. See Not. Appeal. ECF 

No. 23; Not. Appeal Processed, ECF No. 24. 

On further review, it is apparent the “Notice of Appeal” includes a motion for 

reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Not. Appeal at 3–7.1

 Because 

that motion was filed within twenty-eight days of the date judgment was entered, it is construed 

as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. 

 1

 Pages cited here are those printed in the top right by the CM/ECF system. 

Case 2:12-cv-01115-KJM-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/17/16 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

v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898 (9th Cir. 2001). This court has jurisdiction to consider 

a timely Rule 59(e) motion, which also tolls the time period for an appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry 

of the judgment.”); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) (“If a party timely files in the district court any of the 

following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an appeal runs for 

all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion: . . . to alter or 

amend the judgment under Rule 59 . . . .”); Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 

1995) (a notice of appeal “shall be in abeyance and become effective upon the date of entry of an 

order disposing of the Rule 59(e) motion”). 

“Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent 

highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 

Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, the plaintiffs’ § 1983 

claims were dismissed because they did not allege the defendants acted under color of law, 

among other reasons. The plaintiffs’ claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 1341, 1343, and 1621 were 

dismissed because those sections are criminal statutes which do not provide for a private right of 

action. The plaintiffs’ wrongful foreclosure claim was dismissed in light of the parties’ partially 

shared California citizenship and the dismissal of all federal claims. The motion for 

reconsideration does not show these conclusions were erroneous, presents no new evidence, and 

identifies no change in controlling law. See generally Not. Appeal at 3–7 (asserting primarily a 

right to a jury trial). It is accordingly DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 16, 2016 

Case 2:12-cv-01115-KJM-EFB Document 26 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 2