LYALL v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Case No. 17-00472-RAJ.

MARTA D. LYALL, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; TRUMAN TITLE 2013 SC3 TITLE TRUST; TRUMAN CAPITAL ADVISORS, LP; RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; DITECH HOME LOAN SERVICING; CWABS MASTER TRUST, REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2004-"O"; CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER OF KING COUNTY; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-100, Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 48 U.S.C. § 1985
Cause: 48 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy / Deprivation Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Marta D. Lyall, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

U S Bank National Assocation, Defendant, represented by Joshua Schaer , RCO LEGAL, P.S..

Truman Title 2013 SC3 Title Trust, Defendant, represented by Joshua Schaer , RCO LEGAL, P.S..

Truman Capital Advisors LP, Defendant, represented by Joshua Schaer , RCO LEGAL, P.S..

Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua Schaer , RCO LEGAL, P.S..

University of Washington, Defendant, represented by Seth J. Berntsen , GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER.

Kim Turnow, Defendant, represented by Lars E. Neste , DEMCO LAW FIRM.

CWTitle, Defendant, represented by Lars E. Neste , DEMCO LAW FIRM.


ORDER

RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate. Dkt. # 25. The Motion is premised on Plaintiff's belief that the Court was mistaken to conclude that Plaintiff failed to check her spam folder, or failed to diligently prosecute her case. See, generally, Dkt. # 25. Though Plaintiff did not make these statements in her Motion for Extension of Time, Dkt. # 19, she did make these statements in her Notices to the Court. Dkt. ## 17, 18. The Court was not mistaken; the Court merely reiterated statements made to it by Plaintiff.

Even if the Court found that the Motion had merit, it could not grant the Motion in light of Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal. Dkt. # 23. Upon this notice, the Court was divested of jurisdiction "over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997). Specifically, Plaintiff appeals the Court's Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and therefore the Court is divested of jurisdiction to rule on the Motion to Vacate that Order.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate. Dkt. # 25.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases