Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01361/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01361-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN P. VANDERBURGH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GOLDEN EMPIRE MORTGAGE dba GEM

CAPITAL FUNDING and EMC MORTGAGE

CORPORATION,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01361 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

MOTION FOR RELIEF

FROM JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

of the Court’s March 19, 2010 Order dismissing this case with

prejudice and to set aside that Order. Because a motion for

reconsideration applies to orders issued before the entry of final

judgment, see Civil L.R. 7-9, Plaintiff’s motion is construed as a

motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b). 

BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2009, the Court issued an Order dismissing

Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within three weeks from

the date of the order. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint

Case 4:09-cv-01361-CW Document 54 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

within the three week period. On November 5, 2009, Defendant EMC

Mortgage Corporation (EMC) filed, under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b), a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice

on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to comply with an order of

the Court. On November 25, 2009, the Court issued an Order

granting EMC’s motion to dismiss. On the same date, judgment was

entered in favor of EMC and against Plaintiff. 

On December 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed her first motion for

reconsideration and to vacate the November 25, 2009 Order and

Judgment. Plaintiff indicated that, due to faulty mail service,

she did not receive the Court’s September 30 and November 25 Orders

and only became aware of them when she used a friend’s account to

access the Court’s electronic case filing (ECF) system. Plaintiff

also moved for access to the Court’s ECF system. On February 9,

2010, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment

with leave to file an amended complaint within three weeks from the

date of the Order. The Court also granted her motion for

permission to use the ECF system. The Court mailed these Orders to

Plaintiff at an address in San Diego, California that was on file

with the Court. On February 16, 2010, the mail was returned as

undeliverable. On February 17, 2010, the Court re-mailed the

Orders to an address in Escondido, California, that appeared on one

of Plaintiff’s briefs. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint

within the required time period. On March 19, 2010, the Court

issued on Order dismissing the case with prejudice. 

Plaintiff moves for relief from judgment a second time on the

grounds that: she did not know mail was being sent to her San Diego

address, her husband has been ill, she is the sole caretaker of her

Case 4:09-cv-01361-CW Document 54 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

four children and there is new evidence in that Defendant EMC has

filed a notice of default against the property at issue. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that, "upon

such terms as are just," a court may relieve a party from final

judgment 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; (6) any other

reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing. That she was unaware

that the Court had sent her mail is not excusable, in light of the

fact that this is what gave rise to the first dismissal of her

complaint. As discussed above, Plaintiff filed her first motion

for relief from judgment on December 9, 2009, arguing that she

failed to comply with the Court’s order because she had not

received the Court’s mail. She filed her reply to that motion on

December 31, 2009. After her motion was fully briefed, she should

have been expecting the Court to rule on it. Given her past

history of not receiving mail, Plaintiff should have taken action

to ensure that it would not occur again. However, she did not do

so. Plaintiff submits that she changed her address, but was too

busy to file a notice of change of address with the Court. 

However, under Civil Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se has

a duty to “promptly file with the Court and serve upon all opposing

Case 4:09-cv-01361-CW Document 54 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

parties a Notice of Change of Address.” 

On February 17, 2010, the day after the Court’s mail to

Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, the Court re-mailed its

Orders to an address that appeared in the caption of one of

Plaintiff’s pleadings, which she now indicates is her current

address. See Docket # 46. This mailing was not returned to the

Court. Plaintiff failed to respond to this mailing and does not

explain why she did not do so. She also does not explain why she

did not check on the status of her motion. Two months after the

Court’s second mailing, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of

address and this second motion for relief from judgment. However,

this second delay is inexcusable and is insufficient grounds for

vacating the judgment a second time.

Plaintiff’s argument that there is new evidence is misplaced. 

She appears to believe that EMC’s recording of a notice of default

against her real property was wrongful because it was done while

this case was pending, that is, before the Court issued the March

19, 2010 Order dismissing her case. However, Plaintiff never

requested, nor did the Court issue, an injunction preventing the

filing of a notice of default. In fact, the only substantive

ruling in this case was the September 9, 2009 Order dismissing all

of Plaintiff’s causes of action with instructions for remedying

their deficiencies, if Plaintiff truthfully could do so. Because

Plaintiff never filed an amended complaint, she has not stated any

cognizable claims against EMC. Therefore, the fact that this case

was pending did not preclude EMC from filing a notice of default. 

Nor does the filing of a notice of default change the fact that

Plaintiff has not stated any claim upon which relief may be

Case 4:09-cv-01361-CW Document 54 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

granted.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment is

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-01361-CW Document 54 Filed 07/28/10 Page 5 of 5