govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-01593-1

1 
25-CV-1395 JLS (JLB) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 
As Successor in Interest to JPMorgan 
Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee for 
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II 
Trust 2006-AR7 Mortgage Pass-Through 
Certificates Series 2006-AR7 
formerly known as The Bank of New York 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
NITA CHIDESTER, et al. 
Defendants. 
 
NITA CHIDESTER, et al., 
Counterclaimants, 
v. 
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 
As Successor in Interest to JPMorgan 
Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee for 
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II 
Trust 2006-AR7 Mortgage Pass-Through 
Certificates Series 2006-AR7 
 Case No.:  25-CV-1593 JLS (JLB) 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT  
 
(ECF No. 9) 
Case 3:25-cv-01593-JLS-JLB     Document 12     Filed 06/18/26     PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 4
 
2 
25-CV-1395 JLS (JLB) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
formerly known as The Bank of New York, 
et al. 
Counter-Defendants. 
Presently before the Court is Defendants Cynthia Sabrina Chidester ’s and Nita 
Chidester’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 
(“Mot.,” ECF No.  9).  Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion.  See generally Docket.  
Having carefully considered Defendants’ Motion and the law, the Court DENIES the 
Motion, for the reasons that follow. 
BACKGROUND 
This miscellaneous proceeding arises out of Defendants’  attempts to enforce 
deposition subpoenas on Third Party Katherina A. Davis aka Katherina Grant (“Grant”) in 
connection with an underlying foreclosure action pending in the United States District 
Court for the Central District of California, Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Nita Chidester et al. , 
Case No. 8:23-CV-02281-JWH (JDEx).  On June 23, 2025, Defendants filed Motions to 
Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoenas (ECF Nos. 1, 2), seeking to enforce 
subpoenas requiring Grant’s appearance and production of documents in this District.  On 
June 26, 2025, Grant filed a Notice of Entry of Protective Order issued by the Central 
District of California, which granted Grant’s Motion for Protective Order and ordered that 
“the deposition and request for documents under the subpoenas directed to [Grant] shall 
not proceed.”  ECF No. 4 at 2. 
On December 1, 2025, the Court denied Defendants’ Motions to Compel as moot in 
light of the Central District’s Protective Order and closed the case.   See  ECF Nos. 5, 6.   
On December 29, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.  See ECF 
No. 7.  The Court struck that filing for noncompliance with Civil Local Rule 5.1, which 
requires a time and date on motions and supporting documentation.
1  See ECF No. 8.  On 
January 15, 2026, Defendants filed the instant Motion.  See ECF No. 9. 
 
1 The Court notes that its December 31, 2025, Order was returned by the United States Postal Service as 
undeliverable.  See ECF No. 10.  This District’s Civil Local Rules require any party appearing pro se to 
Case 3:25-cv-01593-JLS-JLB     Document 12     Filed 06/18/26     PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 4
 
3 
25-CV-1395 JLS (JLB) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
DISCUSSION 
“Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is 
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or 
made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in 
controlling law.”  Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 
School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993)).  
Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be 
used sparingly.  Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron , 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011).   Clear 
error exists where the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon 
which the judgment rests, and manifest injustice exists where the motion is necessary to 
prevent a result that is clearly unjust.  Id.  
Defendants raise two arguments: (1) that the Court committed clear error, and (2) 
that manifest injustice will result if the Order stands.  See generally Mot.  Neither argument 
is persuasive. 
As to clear error, Defendants contend that this Court, as the compliance court under 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, retains independent authority to enforce the subpoenas 
notwithstanding the Central District’s Protective Order.  See Mot. at 3–7.  However, this 
argument could have been raised in Defendants’ original Motions to Compel before this 
Court.  Rule 59(e) does not provide a vehicle to raise new legal theories that were available 
but not presented prior to judgment.  See Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 508 (2020).  In 
any event, the argument fails on the merits.  The Central District’ s Protective Order 
explicitly directed that “[t]he deposition and request for documents under the subpoenas 
directed to [Grant] shall not proceed. ”  ECF No. 4 at 4.  That order directly and 
 
“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 
passed since December 31, 2025.  See id.  Therefore, “the Court may dismiss th [is] action without 
prejudice for failure to prosecute.”  Id.  The Court nevertheless considers the merits of Defendants’ Motion 
below. 
Case 3:25-cv-01593-JLS-JLB     Document 12     Filed 06/18/26     PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 4
 
4 
25-CV-1395 JLS (JLB) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
comprehensively resolved the underlying discovery dispute, leaving nothing for this Court 
to enforce.  The Court therefore finds no clear error in its December 1, 2025, Order. 
As to manifest injustice, Defendants argue that without Grant’s notary journal they 
cannot prove forgery in the chain of title to their property, potentially resulting in the loss 
of their home.  See Mot. at 8 –11.  The Court is not unsympathetic to Defendants’  
circumstances.  Nonetheless, manifest injustice requires that the ruling itself be clearly 
unjust, not merely that the outcome is adverse to the moving party.  See Zimmerman, 255 
F.3d at 740.  As the Court previously held, the Central District already determined that 
Grant need not comply with the subpoenas, rendering Defendants’ Motions to Compel 
moot.  See ECF Nos. 5, 6; see also ECF No. 4 at 4.  Defendants’ broader dispute over the 
validity of the foreclosure remains pending in the underlying Central District action, where 
those arguments may be properly advanced.  The Court therefore finds no manifest 
injustice warranting relief under Rule 59(e). 
In sum, Defendants have not demonstrated any circumstances warranting relief 
under Rule 59(e), therefore, the Motion must be denied.  
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons provided above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Alter or 
Amend Judgment (ECF No. 9).   The Court will consider no further filings in this closed 
matter. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated:  June 18, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:25-cv-01593-JLS-JLB     Document 12     Filed 06/18/26     PageID.<pageID> 
Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight