Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08036/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08036-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

Fausto U. Cettolin, Jr.; Donna L. Cettolin,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

GMAC; Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc.; Executive Trustee Services,

LLC; et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8036-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiffs filed a New Rule 60 Motion for Relief (Doc. 45) on May 20, 2011, which

the Court denied on May 24, 2011 for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 47). The Court denied the

Motion because Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal before filing the New Rule 60 Motion,

which divested this Court of jurisdiction to decide the Motion.

Plaintiffs now have filed a Motion to Entertain Motion for Relief (Doc. 48). Plaintiffs

claim that this Court can decide a Rule 60(b) motion after a notice of appeal is filed if a party

follows the procedure outlined in Davis v. Yageo, 481 F.3d 661, 685 (9th Cir. 2007). That

procedure is to “ask the district court whether it wishes to entertain the motion, or to grant

it, and then move [the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals], if appropriate, for remand of the

case.” Id. (citing Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The Court does not wish to either entertain or grant the New Motion for Relief (Doc. 45).

Accordingly,

Case 3:10-cv-08036-JAT Document 49 Filed 06/14/11 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 -

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs’ Motion to Entertain Motion for Relief on

Consent Orders – FRCP 60 (Doc. 48).

DATED this 14th day of June, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-08036-JAT Document 49 Filed 06/14/11 Page 2 of 2