United States District Court, D. Nevada
TERESITA F. TAMAYO, Plaintiff,
STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants.
M. Navarro, Chief Judge
before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Teresita F. Tamayo's
(“Plaintiff”) Writ of Error, (ECF No. 9),
concerning the Court's Minute Order, (ECF No. 4), and the
Court's Order dismissing the action without prejudice,
(ECF No. 6).
pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF
No. 10). Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
(“Defendant”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 11), and
Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 13).
addition, pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion
to Strike, (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No.
17), and Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 18). For the
reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff's Writ of Error and
Motion for Default Judgment are DENIED and
Defendant's Motion to Strike is GRANTED.
filed the instant action on January 9, 2017, (ECF No. 1). On
January 11, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause
as to why the Court should not dismiss the action for
Plaintiff's failure to satisfy the requirements of
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No.
4). Plaintiff failed to respond by the Court's deadline
and the Court subsequently dismissed the case without
prejudice on January 31, 2017. (ECF No. 6). On April 24,
2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No.
also filed three documents including a Motion entitled
“Writ of Error Qua Corum Nobis, ” (ECF No. 9),
and two Notices entitled “Conditional Acceptance,
” (ECF No. 14), and “Ruling & Judgment,
” (ECF No. 15). In each of these three documents,
Plaintiff purports to sign as though she has authority to act
on behalf of the Court. Specifically, the three documents
begin with the wording “[c]omes now the court, ”
or “[t]he Court comes now.” (See Mot.,
ECF No. 9); (Notice, ECF No. 14); (Notice, ECF No. 15). All
three filings end with Plaintiff's signature under the
wording “The Court, ” and contain a seal
purporting to be the Court's seal. (See Mot. 14,
ECF No. 9); (Notice 5, ECF No. 14); (Notice 5, ECF No. 15).
WRIT OF ERROR
filed a document under the heading “Writ of Error Qua
Corum Nobis Residant Re: Minute Order, ” (ECF No.
Plaintiff appears to be seeking reconsideration of the
Court's Minute Order, (ECF No. 4), and the Court's
subsequent Order of dismissal, (ECF No. 6). (See
Mot. ¶ 1, ECF No. 9). In light of Plaintiff's status
as a pro se litigant, the Court will liberally construe
Plaintiff's filing as a Motion for Reconsideration.
See Middleton v. Omely Telecom Corp., No.
2:16-cv-01369-JAD-GWF, 2017 WL 5559913, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov.
16, 2017); see also Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d
1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987).
motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent
highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v.
Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation
omitted). Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court
is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the court
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty.,
Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
However, a motion for reconsideration is not a mechanism for
rearguing issues presented in the original filings.
Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.
1985). Furthermore, although the court enjoys discretion in
granting or denying a motion under this rule, “amending
a judgment after its entry remains an extraordinary remedy
which should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. v.
Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Court finds that there was no error in the Court's Order
instructing Plaintiff to show cause as to why the action
should not be dismissed for failure to satisfy the
requirements of 28 § U.S.C. 1332. Plaintiff's
Complaint alleges only state causes of action and fails to
provide a statement regarding the grounds for the Court's
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a). (See Compl., ECF No. 1). Accordingly, the
Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by identifying the
basis for the Court's jurisdiction. (See ECF No.
4). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's deadline
and the Court subsequently dismissed the case, (ECF No. 6).
There was no error in the Court's Order and, therefore,
Plaintiff's Motion is denied.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 10), is without merit.
The case had already been closed at the time of
Plaintiff's Motion in light of Plaintiff's failure to
show cause. (See ECF No. 6). Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is denied.