Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01919/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01919-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Martin R. Brown; Delaine M. Brown, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Brian T. Moynihan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1919-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs’ “motion to vacate the order dated November 19,

2010 for purposeful judicial inpropriety [sic]; judicial bias; and judicial misconduct for

pecuniary gain” (doc. 26). We also have defendants’ joint response to the motion (doc. 27).

Along with baseless libel, plaintiffs’ motion reiterates arguments raised in their

complaint and in response to defendants’ motion to dismiss. We have considered each of

those arguments and rejected them. Construing the motion as one under Rule 59(e) or 60(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P. or LRCiv 7.2(g), plaintiffs have presented nothing that warrants setting aside

the final judgment entered on November 9, 2010 (doc. 25). We reject plaintiffs’ outrageous

allegations of judicial impropriety. If plaintiffs in good faith believe the court’s order of

November 9, 2010 (doc. 24) is erroneous, their remedy lies in a notice of appeal, not an ad

hominem attack on the court.

Case 2:10-cv-01919-FJM Document 29 Filed 12/06/10 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 vacate (doc. 26). 

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01919-FJM Document 29 Filed 12/06/10 Page 2 of 2