Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Case No.: 25-CV-1593 JLS (JLB) As Successor in Interest to JPMorgan 13 Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee for ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 14 Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT Trust 2006-AR7 Mortgage Pass-Through 15 Certificates Series 2006-AR7 (ECF No. 9) 16 formerly known as The Bank of New York 17 Plaintiff, 18 v. 19 NITA CHIDESTER, et al. 20 Defendants. 21 NITA CHIDESTER, et al., 22 Counterclaimants, 23 v. 24 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 25 As Successor in Interest to JPMorgan 26 Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee for Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II 27 Trust 2006-AR7 Mortgage Pass-Through 28 Certificates Series 2006-AR7 1 formerly known as The Bank of New York, et al. 2 Counter-Defendants. 3 4 Presently before the Court is Defendants Cynthia Sabrina Chidester’s and Nita 5 Chidester’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 6 (“Mot.,” ECF No. 9). Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion. See generally Docket. 7 Having carefully considered Defendants’ Motion and the law, the Court DENIES the 8 Motion, for the reasons that follow. 9 BACKGROUND 10 This miscellaneous proceeding arises out of Defendants’ attempts to enforce 11 deposition subpoenas on Third Party Katherina A. Davis aka Katherina Grant (“Grant”) in 12 connection with an underlying foreclosure action pending in the United States District 13 Court for the Central District of California, Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Nita Chidester et al., 14 Case No. 8:23-CV-02281-JWH (JDEx). On June 23, 2025, Defendants filed Motions to 15 Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoenas (ECF Nos. 1, 2), seeking to enforce 16 subpoenas requiring Grant’s appearance and production of documents in this District. On 17 June 26, 2025, Grant filed a Notice of Entry of Protective Order issued by the Central 18 District of California, which granted Grant’s Motion for Protective Order and ordered that 19 “the deposition and request for documents under the subpoenas directed to [Grant] shall 20 not proceed.” ECF No. 4 at 2. 21 On December 1, 2025, the Court denied Defendants’ Motions to Compel as moot in 22 light of the Central District’s Protective Order and closed the case. See ECF Nos. 5, 6. 23 On December 29, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. See ECF 24 No. 7. The Court struck that filing for noncompliance with Civil Local Rule 5.1, which 25 requires a time and date on motions and supporting documentation.1 See ECF No. 8. On 26 January 15, 2026, Defendants filed the instant Motion. See ECF No. 9. 27 28 1 The Court notes that its December 31, 2025, Order was returned by the United States Postal Service as 1 DISCUSSION 2 “Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is 3 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or 4 made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in 5 controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 6 School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993)). 7 Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be 8 used sparingly. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). Clear 9 error exists where the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon 10 which the judgment rests, and manifest injustice exists where the motion is necessary to 11 prevent a result that is clearly unjust. Id. 12 Defendants raise two arguments: (1) that the Court committed clear error, and (2) 13 that manifest injustice will result if the Order stands. See generally Mot. Neither argument 14 is persuasive. 15 As to clear error, Defendants contend that this Court, as the compliance court under 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, retains independent authority to enforce the subpoenas 17 notwithstanding the Central District’s Protective Order. See Mot. at 3–7. However, this 18 argument could have been raised in Defendants’ original Motions to Compel before this 19 Court. Rule 59(e) does not provide a vehicle to raise new legal theories that were available 20 but not presented prior to judgment. See Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 508 (2020). In 21 any event, the argument fails on the merits. The Central District’s Protective Order 22 explicitly directed that “[t]he deposition and request for documents under the subpoenas 23 directed to [Grant] shall not proceed.” ECF No. 4 at 4. That order directly and 24 25 26 “keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to current address.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11(b). Defendants have not filed a Notice of Change of Address with the Court, and more than sixty days have 27 passed since December 31, 2025. See id. Therefore, “the Court may dismiss th[is] action without 28 prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. The Court nevertheless considers the merits of Defendants’ Motion 1 comprehensively resolved the underlying discovery dispute, leaving nothing for this Court 2 ||to enforce. The Court therefore finds no clear error in its December 1, 2025, Order. 3 As to manifest injustice, Defendants argue that without Grant’s notary journal they 4 ||cannot prove forgery in the chain of title to their property, potentially resulting in the loss 5 their home. See Mot. at 8-11. The Court is not unsympathetic to Defendants’ 6 circumstances. Nonetheless, manifest injustice requires that the ruling itself be clearly 7 || unjust, not merely that the outcome is adverse to the moving party. See Zimmerman, 255 8 at 740. As the Court previously held, the Central District already determined that 9 ||Grant need not comply with the subpoenas, rendering Defendants’ Motions to Compel 10 ||moot. See ECF Nos. 5, 6; see also ECF No. 4 at 4. Defendants’ broader dispute over the 11 || validity of the foreclosure remains pending in the underlying Central District action, where 12 ||those arguments may be properly advanced. The Court therefore finds no manifest 13 ||injustice warranting relief under Rule 59(e). 14 In sum, Defendants have not demonstrated any circumstances warranting relief 15 under Rule 59(e), therefore, the Motion must be denied. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons provided above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Alter or 18 || Amend Judgment (ECF No. 9). The Court will consider no further filings in this closed 19 || matter. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: June 18, 2026 tt □ 22 pen Janis L. Sammartino 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28