Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, et al.

Filing 101

ORDER granting 99 Wells Fargo's Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration and denying 92 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/26/12.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association)
dba Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, et al., )
)
)
Defendants.
)
Steve G. Thomas,

No. CV-10-901-PHX-GMS
ORDER

15
16
On April 2, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
17

Defendant Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment.1 (Doc. 90). On April 16, 2012

18
Defendant moved for reconsideration of the April 2 Order. (Doc. 92). On May 8, 2012, the
19
Court directed Plaintiff Steve Thomas to respond to Well Fargo’s motion. (Doc. 93). For the
20
reasons discussed below, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
21
Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented
22
with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was
23
manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.
24
No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A
25
motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had
26
27
1

28

The facts and background pertaining to this action are set out in much greater detail
in the Court’s April 2 Order. (Doc. 90).

1

already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing,

2

Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983).

3

Wells Fargo contends that Plaintiff has not adequately established the damages

4

element of his claims. (Doc. 92 at 6–9). Plaintiff has, indeed, failed to establish a genuine

5

issue of material fact for most of his damages theories. (See Doc. 93). He has not, for

6

instance, submitted evidence to support his claim that absent Wells Fargo’s misapplication

7

of the escrowed funds he would have been entitled to a tax deduction, or that he was

8

damaged by having to pay interest on the escrowed funds or the Second Loan. Nor has he

9

established a genuine issue that he is entitled to unjust enrichment or improper deficiency

10

damages. He may not, therefore, advance these damages theories at trial. Plaintiff has,

11

however, established a genuine issue of fact as to his “loss of personal liquidity” damages

12

theory. (Doc. 54 at 5).

13

To succeed on this loss of personal liquidity theory at trial, Plaintiff must establish,

14

among other things, a causal link between Wells Fargo’s breach of the Escrow Agreement

15

and Plaintiff’s alleged loss of liquidity. Plaintiff must therefore identify admissible evidence

16

that he completed a portion of the agreed-upon improvements. In his opposition to

17

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff identified Exhibit “M” as the evidence

18

of his completion of these improvements. (See Doc. 85 at 4). As noted by Wells Fargo in its

19

motion for reconsideration, Exhibit M is a summary of evidence and does not, itself,

20

constitute admissible evidence. (See Doc. 85 at 13). In directing Plaintiff to respond to

21

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, the Court therefore instructed him to identify

22

admissible evidence in the record which demonstrated his completion of the improvements.

23

(Doc. 93).

24

On June 8, 2012, Plaintiff responded to Wells Fargo’s motion for reconsideration.

25

(Doc. 98). As part of his response, he attaches multiple invoices which he contends document

26

many of the expenses he incurred in completing the improvements. (Doc. 98, Ex. 1). Many

27

of these invoices were part of the record prior to the time when Wells Fargo moved for

28

summary judgment. (See Doc. 58, Ex. A). A reasonable fact finder could determine, given
-2-

1

these invoices and Plaintiff’s likely testimony in relation thereto, that Plaintiff completed at

2

least a portion of the agreed upon improvements. Plaintiff has therefore established a genuine

3

issue of fact for trial.

4

Wells Fargo contends that these invoices are inadmissible. It contends that some of

5

the invoices were not produced by Plaintiff during the course of discovery despite Wells

6

Fargo’s requests for such documents. (Doc. 100). It further contends that other invoices are

7

either irrelevant or lack foundation and are unauthenticated. (Id.).

8

To be sure, to the extent the Court determines that an invoice was not produced by

9

Plaintiff upon a Wells Fargo discovery request, the Court is not likely to admit such evidence

10

at trial. Wells Fargo does not object on lack of production grounds, however, to many of the

11

invoices, arguing only that these invoices are irrelevant, lack foundation, and/or are

12

unauthenticated. (See Doc. 100). Having reviewed the invoices, the Court finds that many

13

of them are relevant to the question of whether Plaintiff completed the improvements. (See

14

Doc. 98, Ex. 1). In regards to Wells Fargo’s authentication and foundation challenges,

15

Federal Rule of Evidence 901 states that “[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or

16

identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support

17

a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” The Rule further states that a

18

document can be authenticated based on the “appearance, contents, substance, internal

19

patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item.” FED. R. EVID. 901(4). The

20

distinctive characteristics of many of Plaintiff’s proffered invoices, such as the official

21

letterhead on which they are printed and the logos which they contain, are sufficient to

22

support a finding that these invoices are what Plaintiff claims they are. (See Doc. 98, Ex. 1).

23

The remaining arguments in Wells Fargo’s motion are essentially requests that the

24

Court “rethink what [it] has already thought through.” Above the Belt, Inc. 99 F.R.D. at 101.

25

Wells Fargo has not identified newly discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or

26

a change in controlling law with respect to these arguments. See id.

27
28

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Wells Fargo’s Motion for Leave to Reply in
-3-

1
2
3
4

Support of its Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 99) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 92) is DENIED.
DATED this 26th day of July, 2012.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-