Osuna v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/3/12.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Plaintiff,

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Oscar Osuna,

vs.

12
Bank of America et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

No. CV-11-1147-PHX-GMS
ORDER

15
16
17

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendants BAC

18

Home Loans Servicing LP and ReconTrust Company, N.A. (Doc. 10). For the reasons

19

discussed below, the motion is denied.

20

BACKGROUND

21

On December 12, 2011, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part

22

Defendants’ earlier motion to dismiss. (Doc. 9). The order dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims

23

except for his claim to Quiet Title, which was based on the assertion in his complaint that

24

“The basis of Plaintiff’s title is a Grant Deed granting the Property in fee simple to Plaintiff

25

dated March 19, 2007 and recorded in the official records of Pinal County, Arizona as

26

Instrument # 2007-040941 APN # 505-59-10500.” (Doc. 1, Ex. 1 at 18). Defendants now

27

claim that no such deed exists, and that the instrument number in question refers to the Deed

28

of Trust, of which the Court took judicial notice in its previous order. (Doc. 10).

1
2

DISCUSSION
1.

Legal Standard

3

Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration may be granted only on one of four

4

grounds, “1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the

5

judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable

6

evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice or 4) there is an intervening

7

change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063

8

(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and emphasis omitted). Motions for reconsideration are

9

disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original

10

briefs and arguments. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d

11

918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor should such motions ask the Court to “rethink what the

12

court has already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32

13

F. Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

14

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

15

2.

Analysis

16

Defendants properly note that Plaintiff has offered no evidence in support of his claim

17

that the property was conveyed to him in fee simple via a “Grant Deed” that has been

18

recorded with Pinal County. They have not, however, stated which of the Turner factors is

19

applicable to their argument that the initial order was wrongly reasoned, and instead appear

20

to argue that the court should “rethink what the court has already thought through.”

21

Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d at 1116. As such, they provide no adequate grounds for the Court

22

to reconsider its order under Rule 59(e). It may indeed appear unlikely that Plaintiff will be

23

able to produce the Grant Deed that he claims exists. Nevertheless, a complaint may survive

24

a motion to dismiss even “if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is

25

improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v

26

Twombly, 550 U.S. 444, 556 (2007) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).

27

///

28

///
-2-

1

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 10) is denied.

2

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2012.

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
-3-