Bever v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. et al

Filing 123

ORDER on Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's April 18, 2014 Ruling on Motions to Amend, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/7/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GLENN W. BEVER,
Plaintiff

8
9
10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:11-CV-1584 AWI SKO

v.
CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE
CORP., et al.,
Defendants

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S APRIL 18, 2014 RULING ON
MOTIONS TO AMEND
(Doc. No. 118)

13
14

On April 18, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an order on Plaintiff’s February 7, 2014,

15
and February 20, 2014, motions to amend. See Doc. No. 117. The Magistrate Judge denied both
16
motions. See id. On April 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the order, which the Court
17
construes as a motion for reconsideration. See Doc. No. 118.
18

After reviewing Plaintiff’s objections and the Magistrate Judge’s order, the Court will

19
overrule the objections. By in large, Plaintiff is re-raising arguments that he made to the
20

Magistrate Judge, or attempting to get reconsideration of the Court’s October 2, 2013, dismissal

21
order. The Court has already denied reconsideration of the October 2 order. See Doc. No. 82. A
22
reiteration of the same rejected arguments, or mere disagreement with the conclusions reached, is
23
not a sufficient basis for reconsideration. United States v. Westland Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d
24
1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001); see also Dimarco-Zappa v. Cabanillas, 238 F.3d 25, 34 (1st Cir.
25

2001); Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s

26
objections are overruled.
27
Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff appears to be, and has been, requesting
28

1

discovery in order to address the shortcomings discussed in the October 2 dismissal order. The

2

only claim against Citimortgage that the Court has permitted to go forward is for violation of

3

California Civil Code § 2923.5. When a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is granted, there is a recognition

4

that the facts alleged do not state a claim and thus, do not justify making a defendant go through

5

the expense of discovery on that claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)

6

(noting that Rule 8 “does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing

7

more than conclusions.”); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559 (2007) (noting that

8

plausibility standard helps to avoid the “expense of discovery” on implausible claims). By

9

dismissing all other claims without leave to amend, the scope of this case and the scope of

10

permissible discovery, were substantially narrowed. Dismissal “without leave to amend” means

11

that those claims are no longer a part of the active proceedings, it does not mean that Plaintiff can

12

continually attempt to amend his complaint to reallege the dismissed claims or seek discovery on

13

the dismissed claims. Plaintiff’s discovery efforts should be/should have been related to the §

14

2923.5 claim against Citimortgage. Plaintiff is not permitted to use the discovery process as a

15

fishing expedition to try and resuscitate dismissed claims.

16
17

ORDER

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 118) are overruled;

20

2.

Plaintiff’s motions to amend (Doc. Nos. 91, 98) remain DENIED; and

21

3.

The lodged Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 92) and Third Amended Complaint

22

(Doc. No. 99) are of no effect and do not constitute the active complaint in this matter.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2