Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02348/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02348-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-02348 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR VACATE JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, et al. ,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-02348 JF

ORDER1 DENYING MOTION TO

RECONSIDER OR VACATE

JUDGMENT

[re: docket no. 20]

I. BACKGROUND

On November 1, 2006, the Court entered judgment for defendants Buckley Real Estate,

Inc. and Sean C. Buckley (“the Buckley Defendants”). On November 6, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a

motion to reconsider or vacate judgment. On December 20, 2006, the Buckley Defendants filed

opposition to the motion. On December 28, 2006, defendant Washington Mutual joined the

Buckley Defendants’ opposition. On December 29, 2006, Defendant Dodie Gaines filed

opposition to the motion. Plaintiffs filed an addendum to the motion on December 29, 2006.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Case 5:06-cv-02348-JF Document 26 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 06-02348 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR VACATE JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part as follows:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a

party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether

heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based

has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the

judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying

relief from the operation of the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion must be made “within a reasonable time” and, with

respect to reasons (1), (2), and (3), cannot be made more than one year after the judgment, order,

or proceeding was entered or taken. Id. A Rule 60(b) motion does not affect the finality of a

judgment or suspend its operation. Id. 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek relief from the judgment in favor of the Buckley Defendants in the form of

a continuance that would allow them to secure legal representation. Even assuming that Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b)(6) allows such relief, the Court concludes that it would not be appropriate in this

case. Plaintiffs filed the instant action nine months ago, and their efforts to secure legal

representation apparently have been unsuccessful. The Court dismissed the action with leave to

amend, but Plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint within the prescribed time. The Court

concludes that the possibility that Plaintiffs will obtain legal representation in the future does not

justify relief from the judgment entered on November 1, 2006. Plaintiffs do not explain why they

expect to succeed on the merits. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion.

 Defendants Washington Mutual Bank and Dodie Gaines, against whom the action also

was dismissed on July 28, 2006, have asked the Court to enter judgment for them because

Plaintiffs failed to amend their complaint within the prescribed time. Plaintiffs object to the

proposed judgment on the same basis that they ask for relief from the judgment in favor of the

Buckley Defendants. For the same reasons that it concludes that it must deny the Rule 60(b)

motion, the Court concludes that it should not defer entry of judgment for the remaining

defendants. Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment for Defendants Washington Mutual

Case 5:06-cv-02348-JF Document 26 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Case No. C 06-02348 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR VACATE JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

Bank and Dodie Gaines. 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to reconsider

or vacate the judgment is DENIED. The clerk shall close the file. 

DATED: January 10, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02348-JF Document 26 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 06-02348 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR VACATE JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

Copies of this order have been served upon the following persons:

Mark J. Romeo romeolaw@msn.com 

Michael Bruce Tannatt michael.tannatt@wamu.net, stacey.elliott@wamu.net 

Notice will be delivered by other means to: 

Theresa M. Marchlewski 

Office of the General Counsel

9200 Oakdale Ave., Seventh Floor

Mail Stop N110701

Chatsworth, CA 91311

Christopher E. Schumb 

The Law Offices of Christopher E. Schumb

10 Almaden Blvd

Suite 1250

San Jose, CA 95113

Nathaniel Basola Sobayo

1608 Hollenbeck Avenue

Suite 1

Sunnyvale, CA 94087-5403

Christopher Franz Wuillemin

1608 Hollenbeck Avenue

Apartment #1

Sunnyvale, CA 94087-5403

Waltraud Wuillemin

1608 Hollenbeck Avenue

Apartment #1

Sunnyvale, CA 94087-5403

Case 5:06-cv-02348-JF Document 26 Filed 01/10/07 Page 4 of 4