Silas v. Argent Mortgage Company, LLC its Successors and/or Assigns
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 23 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(E) signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/28/2017. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RODRICK J. SILAS,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE
11 ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC ITS 59(E)
SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS; and DOES
12 1-25, Inclusive,
(ECF No. 23)
Now before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Rodrick Silas’ (“Plaintiff” or “Silas”) motion to amend
16 or alter judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed on August 21,
17 2017. (ECF No. 23.) The Court has reviewed the motion and does not believe an opposition is
18 necessary. The hearing on the motion is VACATED pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
Plaintiff’s complaint in this action alleged violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act
20 (“TILA”), and brought causes of action for quiet title, cancellation of instrument, and declaratory relief
21 related to real property at 5914 Summer Country Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93313 (“Subject Property”).
22 On July 24, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court and granted
23 Intervenor Defendant US Bank’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. (ECF No. 18.) The Court also
24 granted Intervenor Defendant’s motion to expunge lis pendens and ordered Mr. Silas to pay Defendant’s
25 attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $1,540.00. (Id.) Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its
July 24, 2017 motion.
A motion which challenges the Court’s final judgment (in this case, the dismissal without leave
to amend) may be brought under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441-42 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Eubank v.
Terminix Int’l, Inc., No. 15CV00145-WQH (JMA), 2016 WL 6277422, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016)
(“when a district court dismisses certain claims with prejudice, the dismissal satisfies the finality
requirement of Rule 60”). Under Rule 59(e), a party may move to have the court amend its judgment
within twenty-eight days after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Since specific grounds for a
motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in
10 granting or denying the motion.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011)
11 (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam)). But
12 amending a judgment after its entry remains “an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.”
13 Id. In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) if such
14 motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such
15 motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion
16 is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change
17 in controlling law. Id.
Plaintiff filed a timely motion on August 21, 2017. In his motion, Plaintiff argues that the
19 Court’s order was manifestly unjust, reiterating the same arguments that he made in his remand motion
20 and in his opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. He argues that US Bank is not a proper party in
21 the case and that they have no interest in the Subject Property. (ECF No. 23 at 4-9.) He also restates his
22 position that US Bank is a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and it
23 was not entitled to collect on Plaintiff’s debt. (Id. at 9-13.)
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e). As
25 the Court previously explained, Intervenor Defendant is a real party in interest in this case and not a debt
collector under the FDCPA:
US Bank is not a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA. ECF
No. 16 at 2. As the Supreme Court recently concluded in a case
concerning an entity that purchased loans in default for its own account,
“[i]ndividuals and entities who regularly purchase debts originated by
someone else and then seek to collect those debts for their own account
are not ‘debt collectors’ subject to the FDCPA.” Henson v. Santander
Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017).
[A]s the purchaser of Plaintiff’s mortgage debt, which is the subject of
Plaintiff’s Complaint, Intervenor Defendant is a real party in interest with
standing to remove this case. The state court properly granted US Bank’s
motion to intervene because US Bank clearly has an “interest relating to
the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.” California
Code of Civil Procedure § 387(b).
(ECF No. 18 at 8.)
Moreover, the Court was correct in granting dismissal because Plaintiff’s non-TILA claims are
barred by res judicata and his TILA claims are time-barred. (ECF No. 18.) Having carefully reviewed
the entire file, the Court concludes that its prior order denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand and granting
Intervenor Defendant’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend is supported by the record and by
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment
under Rule 59(e) (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
August 28, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?