Zoroglu et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 10

ORDER, Defendants shall file a Response to Plaintiffs' 9 MOTION for Reconsideration by 1/31/12; should Defendant Wells Fargo agree to continue the trustee's sale voluntarily and file notice of such, Defendants shall have, until 2/6/12 to file a response. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/26/12. (REW)

Download PDF
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 ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Wells Fargo Bank, NA; First American ) ) Title Insurance Company, ) ) Defendants. ) Demir Zoroglu and Tuzin G. Zoroglu, husband and wife, No. CV-12-156-PHX-GMS ORDER 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 9). For 17 18 the reasons set forth below, Defendants are asked to file a response. BACKGROUND 19 20 The facts in this matter are set forth in the Court’s previous order denying a 21 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). (Doc. 7). Plaintiffs ask for reconsideration of that 22 order based upon their claim that Wells Fargo appointed First American Loanstar Trustee 23 Services, LLC, as a successor trustee in January of 2010, and that First American Title 24 Company had no power to notice a trustee sale in November of 2011, since it was no longer 25 the trustee. (Doc. 9). DISCUSSION 26 27 28 1. Legal Standard Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration may be granted only on one of four 1 grounds, “1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 2 judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable 3 evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice or 4) there is an intervening 4 change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 5 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and emphasis omitted). Motions for reconsideration are 6 disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original 7 briefs and arguments. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 8 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor should such motions ask the Court to “rethink what the 9 court has already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 10 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon 11 Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). 12 2. Analysis 13 Although Plaintiffs’ argument regarding the substitution of trustee is presented in the 14 complaint, it is discussed only in a cursory fashion in their TRO motion, which includes the 15 sentence “Wells Fargo and FATCO have not satisfied the statutorily required conditions 16 precedent to a lawful trustee sale.” (Doc. 1-1, Ex. 5 at 5). Such a statement does nothing to 17 reference the argument, let alone establish any likelihood of raising serious issues as to the 18 merits of Plaintiff’s claim. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court asks 19 Defendants to respond to the motion. Defendants’ response will be directed solely to the 20 issue of whether First American Title Company had the power to notice a trustee’s sale of 21 the property. 22 Defendants shall have three business days to respond. Previously, Defendant Wells 23 Fargo requested that their deadline to respond be extended to February 6, 2012, the scheduled 24 date of the trustee’s sale. Defendant Wells Fargo, in making that motion, wrote that it “agrees 25 to voluntarily continue the Trustee’s Sale for a period of no less than thirty (30) days.” (Doc. 26 6). Should Wells Fargo agree to continue the trustee’s sale voluntarily for thirty days, 27 Defendants may have until February 6, 2012 to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for 28 Reconsideration. -2- 1 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 9) on or before Tuesday, January 31, 2012. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Defendant Wells Fargo agree to continue 4 the trustee’s sale voluntarily and file notice of such, Defendants shall have, to and including, 5 February 6, 2012 to file a response. 6 DATED this 26th day of January, 2012. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?