Brophy et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et al, No. 2:2014cv00411 - Document 55 (E.D. Wash. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO VACATE. Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Judgment and Order ECF No. 51 is DENIED. Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.s Motion for Joinder ECF No. 54 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

Download PDF

Brophy et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et al Doc. 55 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 MARK W. BROPHY, and SUSAN A. BROPHY, NO: 2:14-CV-0411-TOR 8 Plaintiffs, 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE v. 10 11 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., 12 Defendants. 13 14 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) Motion to Vacate 15 Judgment and Order (ECF No. 51). This matter was submitted for consideration 16 without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and the 17 files herein, and is fully informed. 18 19 20 BACKGROUND On April 28, 2015, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. ECF No. 29. Plaintiffs’ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 response to Chase’s motion was due by May 19, 2015. See LR 7.1(b). Plaintiffs 2 did not file a response. On July 31, 2015, the Court granted Chase’s motion. ECF 3 No. 43. 4 On August 19, 2015, Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“NWTS”) 5 filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 44. On October 7, 2015, 6 Plaintiffs filed a late response. ECF No. 47. On October 28, 2015, the Court 7 granted NWTS’s motion (ECF No. 49), and entered final judgment in favor of 8 Chase and NWTS. ECF No. 50. 9 Plaintiffs now move the Court to vacate the orders and judgment in favor of 10 Chase and NWTS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ECF No. 51. 11 Chase filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 52. NWTS filed a motion to join in 12 Chase’s stated opposition.1 ECF No. 54. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to Rule 60(b) relief because their unique 15 circumstances directly impacted this case. In support, Plaintiffs claim Mr. Brophy 16 was unavailable for coordination and communications with counsel from June 4, 17 2015 through October 4, 2015. ECF No. 51 at 2. During this time, Plaintiffs claim 18 19 20 1 The Court grants this motion and recognizes, for the same reasons as stated in Chase’s opposition, NWTS opposes Plaintiffs’ motion. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 2 1 Mr. Brophy’s job with the U.S. Forest Service required he “work six days a week 2 and 9-14 hours per day” on firefighting operations in California, Nevada and 3 Oregon. Id. Plaintiffs assert his schedule “did not allow him to return to Spokane 4 at any time during that time period or to be in regular communication with 5 counsel.” Id. Plaintiffs argue these “extraordinary duties Mr. Brophy was required 6 to perform” directly impacted this case. Id. at 3. 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides: 8 13 [T]he court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying its prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiffs’ motion is based upon subsection one and six. See 15 ECF No. 51 at 3-4. However, “[t]hese provisions are mutually exclusive,” and 16 thus a party who failed to take action due to excusable neglect may not seek relief 17 by resorting to subsection six. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. 18 P’ship., 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993) (citing Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition 19 Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 n.11 (1988)). 9 10 11 12 20 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 3 1 Because the circumstances described by Plaintiffs sound of neglect, the 2 Court finds a Rule 60(b)(1) analysis is appropriate. Under Rule 60(b)(1), “the 3 determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on 4 at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the 5 length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for 6 the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. United 7 States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Inv. 8 Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 395. A Rule 60(b)(1) motion must be made within a 9 “reasonable time” and no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order. 10 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Here, a balancing of the Rule 60(b)(1) factors weigh against granting 12 Plaintiffs’ instant motion. First, Plaintiffs make no effort to discuss the first two 13 factors and have not established that Chase and NWTS would not be unduly 14 prejudiced or that this litigation would not be adversely impacted if the judgment is 15 vacated. The Court finds the adverse effect on the Defendants and the litigation 16 would be significant if Plaintiffs’ instant motion was granted. The present action is 17 the second time the Plaintiffs have sued the Defendants on these claims in this 18 Court. In the first action, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary 19 dismissal and the case was dismissed without prejudice on August 22, 2014. See 20 Brophy v. JP Morgan National Association, et al., case no. 2:13-CV-0293-TOR, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 4 1 ECF Nos. 66, 67. Plaintiffs initiated this action three months later. See ECF No. 1 2 at 2 (Notice of Removal stating Plaintiffs filed the instant action in Spokane 3 County Superior Court on or about October 27, 2014). Principles of equity prevent 4 Plaintiffs from once again litigating claims that they have twice failed to litigate 5 properly. 6 Second, Plaintiffs do not provide a legitimate reason for the delay. The 7 proffered reason, that Mr. Brophy was unavailable to communicate and coordinate 8 with counsel, does not adequately explain why counsel did not request extensions 9 of time from the Court or instead communicate and coordinate with Mrs. Brophy 10 while Mr. Brophy was away. Moreover, according to Plaintiffs, Mr. Brophy’s 11 unavailability began on June 4, 2015, see ECF No. 51 at 2, several weeks after 12 their May 19, 2015 deadline to respond to Chase’s motion for summary judgment. 13 Also, Plaintiffs did file a response, albeit a late response, to NWTS’s motion for 14 summary judgment on October 7, 2015, see ECF No. 47, three days after Mr. 15 Brophy’s return, see ECF No. 51 at 2, allowing counsel time to coordinate with her 16 clients. 17 Last, the Court finds that even if Plaintiffs have acted in good faith, this is 18 not sufficient to tip the balance of factors in their favor. Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion is 19 denied. 20 /// ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 5 1 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Judgment and Order (ECF No. 51) is DENIED. 3 2. Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.’s Motion for Joinder (ECF No. 4 54) is GRANTED. 5 The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and 6 7 furnish copies to counsel. Dated December 23, 2015. 8 9 10 11 THOMAS O. RICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ~ 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.