Kerner et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

Filing 8

ORDER that Plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration (Docs. 6 , 7 ) are denied. No further motions shall be filed. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 07/29/11.(ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Kathy Lee Kerner; and Anthony J. Kuc Jr.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. CV-11-8091-PCT-DGC
ORDER

vs.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as
Trustee of the IndyMac INDX Mortgage
Trust 2007-FLX3, Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-FLX3 Under the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated
April 1, 2007,
Defendant.

16
17

In an order dated July 22, 2011 (Doc. 5), the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint

18

(Doc. 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded a related action (Doc. 4 at

19

7-15) to state court. Plaintiffs have filed identical documents entitled “objection and

20

demand” (Docs. 6, 7), which the Court will construe as motions for reconsideration. For

21

reasons that follow, the motions will be denied.

22

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

23

circumstances. Such a motion is denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing

24

of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention

25

earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d

26

934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for

27

reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502,

28

1

at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008).

2

Plaintiffs assert that they were not notified of the motion to remand (Doc. 4), but a

3

review of the Court’s docket shows that the motion was mailed to Plaintiffs at their

4

addresses of record on June 27, 2011. In any event, the Court clearly lacks subject matter

5

jurisdiction over the wrongful foreclosure complaint and the related forcible entry and

6

detainer action. See Doc. 5.

7

Plaintiffs note, correctly, that pro se litigants generally should be granted leave

8

to amend and provided an explanation of the complaint’s deficiencies.

The Court

9

previously explained why the wrongful foreclosure complaint fails to establish federal

10

jurisdiction. Doc. 5. The Court finds leave to amend to be futile. Plaintiffs, of course,

11

may seek to assert their claim for wrongful foreclosure as a counterclaim in the state

12

court action.

13

Apr. 18, 2011).

See Deutsche Bank v. Kerner, No. CV2011-00617 (Ariz. Super. Ct.

14

IT IS ORDERED:

15

1.

Plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration (Docs. 6, 7) are denied.

16

2.

No further motions shall be filed.

17

Dated this 29th day of July, 2011.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-