Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00667/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00667-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

Richard Geddes, et al, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

HSBC Bank USA, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-00667-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment (doc. 53),

defendants’ response (doc. 56), and plaintiffs’ reply (doc. 57).

Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., for an order setting aside the

final judgment entered in favor of defendants on June 1, 2012 (doc. 31). Plaintiffs contend

that they have acquired “newly discovered evidence” of “fraud on the court” in the form of

a “Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Report,” which allegedly shows that

the documents evidencing chain of title, and which were used to foreclose their property,

were “fraudulent to the extent that the persons executing those document lacked authority

from the holder of the Note and from the owner of the Note to exercise the power of sale.”

Final judgment was entered and this case is now on appeal. Once an appeal is filed,

a district court lacks authority to consider a motion to vacate judgment. Gould v. Mutual

Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). Instead, pursuant to Rule 62.1, Fed. R. Civ.

Case 2:12-cv-00667-FJM Document 58 Filed 05/22/13 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 -

P., a district court may only (1) defer consideration of the motion, (2) deny the motion, or (3)

state that we would either grant the motion upon limited remand, or that the motion raises a

substantial issue.

Because plaintiffs’ motion does not raise a substantial issue, we would deny the

motion on its merits. Therefore, a remand is not warranted.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the judgment (doc. 53).

DATED this 21st day of May, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00667-FJM Document 58 Filed 05/22/13 Page 2 of 2