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.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Goldberg

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

June 5, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
ELINOR K. GOLDBERG, ALBERT M. GOLDBERG, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., SOLELY AS NOMINEE FOR COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., PUALANI ESTATES AT KONA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, JOHN DOES 1-50, JANE DOES 1-50, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50, DOE ENTITIES 1-50, DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING THE GOLDBERGS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

          LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On April 12, 2019, this Court issued an Order Sua Sponte Remanding the Instant Case to State Court (“4/12/19 Order”). [Dkt. no. 19.[1] On April 26, 2019, pro se Defendants/Counterclaimants Albert M. Goldberg (“A. Goldberg”) and Elinor K. Goldberg (“E. Goldberg” and collectively “the Goldbergs”) filed a motion for reconsideration of the 4/12/19 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”). [Dkt. no. 22.] Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) filed its memorandum in opposition on May 13, 2019. [Dkt. no. 27.] The Court has considered the Motion for Reconsideration as a non-hearing matter pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (“Local Rules”). The Goldbergs' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         The factual and procedural background of this case is set forth in the 4/12/19 Order and will not be repeated here. In the 4/12/19 Order, this Court sua sponte remanded the instant case to the State of Hawai'i, Third Circuit Court (“state court”) because A. Goldberg's attempt to remove the action was untimely.[2] [4/12/19 Order at 7-8.] In addition, this Court concluded that neither federal question jurisdiction nor admiralty/maritime/prize jurisdiction applies in this case. [Id. at 8-9.] To the extent that the removal was based on diversity jurisdiction: A. Goldberg was required to obtain the joinder in, or consent to, the removal by Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (“MERS”) and Defendant Pualani Estates at Kona Community Association (“Pualani Estates”), but he failed to do so; [id. at 9-12;] and the Notice of Removal failed to establish that “the action is between ‘citizens of different States, '” [id. at 12 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1))]. Thus, this Court ordered that the case be remanded to the state court.

         In the Motion for Reconsideration, the Goldbergs argue that all of these rulings were erroneous, and they assert the instant case should remain in this district court.

         STANDARD

         An order remanding a case to state court is considered a dispositive, i.e. final, order. See, e.g., Estate of Tungpalan v. Crown Equip. Corp., Civil No. 11-00581 LEK-BMK, 2013 WL 2897777, at *5-6 (D. Hawai'i June 12, 2013) (considering a party's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation to remand the case as a dispositive matter). “When a ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order . . . a motion for reconsideration may be construed as either a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment under [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 60(b).” Grandinetti v. Sells, CIV. NO. 16-00517 DKW/RLP, 2016 WL 6634868, at *1 (D. Hawai'i Nov. 8, 2016) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)). Because there has been no judgment entered in this case, the Goldbergs' Motion for Reconsideration is reviewed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the 4/12/19 Order.

         Rule 60(b) states, in relevant part:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final . . . order . . . 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 it ...

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.