United States District Court, D. Hawaii
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
C. Kay Sr. United States District Judge
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.
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.
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.
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. . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(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 ...