Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Staton

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 9, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RONALD B. STATON, BRENDA STATON, NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION, and STATE OF HAWAII, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS RONALD AND BRENDA STATONS' RULE 59(e) MOTION TO ALTER, AMEND OR VACATE ORDER CONFIRMING SALE AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND MOTION TO STAY ORDER CONFIRMING SALE

          Alan C. Kay Sr. United States District Judge

         For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendants Ronald and Brenda Statons' Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate Order Confirming Sale and Denying Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal and Motion to Stay Order Confirming Sale (“May 3, 2018 Motion”). ECF No. 357.

         BACKGROUND

         For purposes of the current motion, the Court discusses only those facts relevant to Defendants Ronald (“Mr. Staton”) and Brenda (“Mrs. Staton” and together with Mr. Staton, the “Statons”) Statons' May 3, 2018 Motion.

         On April 6, 2018, the Court held a hearing on whether the foreclosure sale in this matter should be confirmed, the Commissioner's Report approved, and the issues of priority and disbursement of the foreclosure sale proceeds. ECF No. 327. At the conclusion of the April 6, 2018 hearing, the Court granted the Government's Motion for an Order Confirming Sale, Approving Commissioner's Report and Distributing Proceeds to the extent that it: (1) confirmed the sale; (2) approved the Commissioner's Report; and (3) approved the Government's proposed order of priority for future disbursements. Id. The Court also stated that it would issue a written order. Id.

         That same day, on April 6, 2018, the Statons filed a hand-written notice of appeal. ECF No. 328. The notice of appeal cited no statutory or legal authority and appealed from the Court's “Order Confirming Sale, Approving Commissioner's Report and Distributing Proceeds. . . .” Id.

         On April 10, 2018, the Court entered a minute order stating that it would construe the Statons' April 6, 2018 notice of appeal as a motion to permit an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. ECF No. 329. The minute order scheduled a hearing on the motion for April 18, 2018, and directed the parties to file any memoranda in support or opposition by Friday, April 13, 2018. Id. The Court also issued an Order Confirming Sale, Approving Commissioner's Report, and Determining Order of Priority for Future Disbursements on April 10, 2018 (“April 10, 2018 Order”). ECF No. 330.

         On April 18, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the Statons' motion to permit an interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 340. At the hearing, the Court proposed that the escrow closing set for April 27, 2018, be continued to May 11, 2018, in order to provide the Statons additional time to move out of their home (the “Residence”). The purchaser of the Residence, who was present at the April 18, 2018 hearing, agreed to the proposed continuation to accommodate the Statons. Id.; ECF No. 343. Accordingly, the Court entered a minute order on April 19, 2018, rescheduling the escrow closing originally scheduled for April 27, 2018 to May 11, 2018. ECF No. 343.

         Following the hearing, on April 19, 2018, the Court issued an Order Denying Defendants Ronald and Brenda Statons' Motion for Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal (“April 19, 2018 Order”). ECF No. 344. In Section IV of the Court's April 19, 2018 Order, the Court discussed the requirements to stay proceedings by supersedeas bond and made an initial estimate that the appropriate amount of a supersedeas bond should be $798, 000.00. ECF No. 344 at 39-40 & n.13. The Court also stated that the parties would have an opportunity to object to the proposed supersedeas bond amount. Id. at 40 n.13.

         On April 24, 2018, the Statons filed a Motion to Stay Order Confirming Sale Pending Appeal. ECF No. 347. The Statons requested an order granting a stay as of right pending appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), conditioned upon a final determination of a supersedeas bond and the amount of the bond. Id. On April 25, 2018, the Court entered a minute order setting a hearing for May 2, 2018, to make a final determination on the amount of a supersedeas bond or other such security that the Statons would be required to provide. ECF No. 348.

         On April 26, 2018, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Statons' appeal from the April 10, 2018 Order confirming the sale (as well as the Statons' separate attempted appeal from an earlier order), finding that the orders challenged in the respective appeals were neither final nor appealable. See ECF Nos. 350, 352. Accordingly, the Court entered a minute order on April 26, 2018, vacating the hearing on the Statons' Motion to Stay Order Confirming Sale Pending Appeal. ECF No. 347.

         On May 3, 2018, the Statons filed the current motion seeking to alter, amend or vacate the Court's April 19, 2018 Order denying their motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 357. Under Local Rule 7.2(e), the Court finds it appropriate to decide the Statons' May 3, 2018 Motion without a hearing.

         STANDARD

         Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30[4](3d ed. 2000)). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has explained that “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Id. A Rule 59(e) motion may not be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.