Page 1 - APPELLEES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S MOTION 

FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

89952953.1 0052161- 02092

Oren B. Haker, OSB No. 130162

oren.haker@stoel.com

Crystal S. Chase, OSB No. 093104

crystal.chase@stoel.com

STOEL RIVES LLP

760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000

Portland, Oregon 97205-2584

Telephone: (503) 224-3380

Facsimile: (503) 220-2480

Attorneys for Appellees Bank of New York Mellon and Select Portfolio 

Servicing, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

LORI DIANE BACZKOWSKI,

Appellant,

v.

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON; 

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE 

CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON; and 

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,

Appellees.

Case No.: 6:16-cv-00150-MC

APPELLEES BANK OF NEW YORK 

MELLON, F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW 

YORK, AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF 

THE HOLDERS OF THE 

ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-

23CB, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-23CB 

AND SELECT PORTFOLIO

SERVICING, INC.’S RESPONSE IN 

OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S 

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF 

FROM JUDGMENT—FRCP 60

Appellees Bank of New York Mellon, f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee, on 

Behalf of the Holders of the Alternative Loan Trust 2007-23cb, Mortgage Pass-Through 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 28 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 - APPELLEES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S MOTION 

FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

89952953.1 0052161- 02092

Certificates, Series 2007-23cb (“the Trust”) and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) hereby 

oppose pro se Appellant Lori Diane Baczkowski’s (“Debtor” or “Appellant”) “Motion for 

Expedited Relief from Judgment—FRCP 60” (“Motion for Relief”), in which Debtor seeks 

relief from the Judgment of dismissal entered on November 3, 2016 (“Judgment”) (Dkt. #25). 

Although Debtor moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), (4), (5), and (6), 

she has not identified a cognizable basis for granting relief from the Judgment. Accordingly, the 

Court should deny Debtor’s Motion for Relief. 

DISCUSSION

First, Debtor has not identified any fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct as required 

by FRCP 60(b)(3). To prevail on a motion under this rule, the movant must prove that the 

judgment was “unfairly obtained,” not merely that the judgment is “factually incorrect.” In re 

M/V Peacock, 809 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1987). Although Debtor clearly disagrees with this 

Court’s affirmance of the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal, her disagreement with the resolution of 

the matter do not provide a basis for relief from the Judgment. The mere fact that the Trust has 

scheduled a foreclosure sale also does not provide a basis for relief. 

Second, Debtor has not identified any reason why the Judgment is void, as required by 

FRCP 60(b)(4). A judgment may be set aside as void under Rule 60(b)(4) only “for the 

exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’ for 

jurisdiction.” United States Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010) (citations 

omitted). Here, Debtor does not dispute that this Court had jurisdiction over the appeal from the 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 28 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 - APPELLEES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S MOTION 

FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

89952953.1 0052161- 02092

Bankruptcy Court’s order. Nor has Debtor suggested any way in which the Court acted 

inconsistently with due process.1

 

Third, Debtor has not identified any basis for setting aside the Judgment as inequitably 

applied prospectively to Debtor or other reason that justifies the relief that Debtor seeks. (FRCP 

60(b)(5) and (6)). Again, Debtor’s focus is only on her disagreement with the Court’s ruling, 

which is insufficient to justify relief under Rule 60(b). Merely because Debtor identifies a 

decision from another district court that reached a different result on different facts does not 

justify setting aside a finally entered judgment more than a month after its entry. 

CONCLUSION

Debtor has identified no basis for granting her relief from the Judgment. SPS and the 

Trust respectfully request that the Debtor’s Motion for Relief be denied. 

DATED: December 12, 2016.

STOEL RIVES LLP

/s/ Crystal S. Chase

OREN B. HAKER, OSB No. 130162

CRYSTAL S. CHASE, OSB No. 093104

Telephone: (503) 224-3380

Attorneys for Appellees Bank of New York 

Mellon and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

 1 To the extent that Debtor challenges the Court’s interim order denying her second motion for 

extension of time that did not comply with local rules or the Court’s prior instruction, that 

challenge is not cognizable under Rule 60(b) because it is not a “final . . . order[.]”

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 28 Filed 12/12/16 Page 3 of 4
Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

89952953.1 0052161- 02092

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served the foregoing APPELLEES’ RESPONSE IN 

OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF FROM 

JUDGMENT on the following named person(s) on the date indicated below by

 mailing with postage prepaid

 hand delivery

 facsimile transmission

 overnight delivery

 email

 notice of electronic filing using the Cm/ECF system

to said person(s) a true copy thereof, contained in a sealed envelope, addressed to said person(s) 

at his or her last-known address(es) indicated below.

Lori Diane Bacskowski

1025 Ne Fall Drive

Grants Pass, OR 97526

Appellant, Pro Se

DATED: December 12, 2016.

STOEL RIVES LLP

/s/ Crystal S. Chase

OREN B. HAKER, OSB No. 130162

CRYSTAL S. CHASE, OSB No. 093104

Telephone: (503) 224-3380

Attorneys for Appellees Bank of New York 

Mellon and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 28 Filed 12/12/16 Page 4 of 4