Ames v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Donna Ryu
- 4:23-cv-01080
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ames v. Wells Fargo, Judge Ryu denied Ames’s reconsideration motion because transfer ended this court’s jurisdiction and the motion lacked required grounds.
Linda Marie Ames’s request for reconsideration was denied; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. was the opposing party, and the case remained transferred to the Western District of Washington.
What happened
Ames v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. concerns Linda Marie Ames’s request to reconsider an order transferring her case to the Western District of Washington. The transfer became effective when that court docketed the case on October 30, 2023.
The Northern District of California said it no longer had authority to decide the request after the transfer. It also said that, even if it had authority, Ames’s motion did not identify any of the required reasons for reconsideration.
Judge Donna Ryu denied the motion for reconsideration on October 31, 2023.
The detailed version
- Ames v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 4:23-cv-01080
- Donna Ryu
- Oct. 31, 2023
Background
On October 27, 2023, the court transferred the case to the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The case was electronically transmitted and docketed in that court on October 30, 2023. That same day, Linda Marie Ames filed a document titled “Objection to Magistrate’s Recommendation,” which she docketed as an emergency motion asking the Northern District of California to reconsider the transfer order.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that its jurisdiction—the legal authority to decide the matter—ended when the case was docketed in the Western District of Washington. It therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider Ames’s reconsideration motion.
The court also gave an alternative reason for denying the motion. Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, reconsideration of an interlocutory order requires one of specified grounds, such as a previously unavailable material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. The court found that Ames’s motion did not address any of those grounds.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. The order did not change the prior transfer of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.