Haller v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying plaintiff's 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 11/01/11.(ESL)

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
15

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Wells Fargo Bank NA; World Savings)
Bank, FSB; MTC Financial Inc., dba)
)
Trustee Corps,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Michael Dean Haller,

CV 11-1381-PHX-FJM
ORDER

16
17

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (doc. 20). This case

18

arises out of a notice of trustee sale that was executed by defendant Wells Fargo for a

19

property owned by plaintiff. On September 29, 2011 we granted defendants' motions to

20

dismiss all claims (doc. 15). Plaintiff moves the court to reconsider our ruling.

21

Under LR Civ 7.2(g), a court should deny a motion for reconsideration "absent a

22

showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

23

been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence." Plaintiff argues that we

24

dismissed the case in part because we stated that plaintiff failed to respond to defendant

25

Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is mistaken. We noted in our order that plaintiff's

26

response to the motion to dismiss (doc. 12) was among the items before the court. Order at

27

1. In addition to its motion to dismiss, Wells Fargo filed a separate request for judicial notice

28

(doc. 10). As we stated in our order, plaintiff did not file an opposition or other response to

1

Wells Fargo's request for judicial notice. Id. at 1. In addition, we noted that plaintiff did not

2

respond to MTC Financial's motion to renew its state court motion to dismiss (doc. 8). Id.

3

at 3. We indicated that the request for judicial notice and MTC Financial's motion to dismiss,

4

not Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss, were unopposed.

5

We carefully considered plaintiff's arguments before ruling on Wells Fargo's motion

6

to dismiss. Plaintiff has not brought forth new facts or legal authority, and has made no

7

showing that our order committed manifest error. Accordingly, we deny plaintiff's motion.

8

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (doc. 20).

9

DATED this 1st day of November, 2011.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-