Becker et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. et al
Filing
87
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/29/2012 DENYING 59 Motion for Reconsideration. This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Donati, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
DENNLY R. BECKER, THE
BECKER TRUST DATED
MARCH 25, 1991,
11
NO. CIV. S-10-2799 LKK/KJN
Plaintiffs,
12
v.
13
O R D E R
14
15
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; DOES 1-20,
16
Defendants.
/
17
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the court’s August 1,
18
19
2008 order.
20
denied.
21
I.
22
For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Dennly R. Becker obtained several mortgages from
23
“World Savings,” starting around 1983.
24
mortgages are now owned by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and serviced by
25
Wachovia
26
defendants in state court, which the defendants removed here on the
Mortgage
Corp.
Plaintiff
1
He alleges that the
filed
an
action
against
1
basis of diversity jurisdiction.
In his First Amended Complaint,
2
plaintiff added federal claims.
Defendants moved to dismiss,
3
asserting federal preemption, among other grounds.
4
On March 22, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued an order
5
granting defendants’ motion to dismiss several claims, but did so
6
without prejudice.1
7
of the Magistrate’s order.
8
Findings and Recommendations that recommended that several other
9
claims be dismissed with prejudice.
10
Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration
The Magistrate Judge also filed
On August 1, 2008 this court issued an order that adopted the
11
Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations in full.
12
expressly found that plaintiff could not amend his complaint “to
13
add allegations that his mortgages were somehow transferred to or
14
acquired
15
preempted by the Home Owners’ Lending Act (“HOLA”), 12 U.S.C. §§
16
1461, et seq., and regulations.
17
plaintiff’s reconsideration motion in part, but only to the extent
18
that plaintiff would be permitted to add facts to an amended
19
complaint in support of his claim under the Real Estate Settlement
20
Procedures Act (“RESPA”).
by
unknown
entities,”
because
such
claims
This court
would
be
However, this court also granted
21
Plaintiff has now filed this motion for reconsideration of the
22
court’s reconsideration order, asserting that the court committed
23
“clear error” in the court’s analysis of HOLA preemption.
24
1
25
26
Defendants declined to consent to proceed before the
Magistrate Judge. Since plaintiff is proceeding pro per, however,
the Magistrate Judge was authorized to proceed by E.D. Cal.
R. 302(c)(21).
2
1
II.
RECONSIDERATION STANDARD
2
Before reconsideration may be granted there must be a change
3
in the controlling law, facts, or other circumstances, the need to
4
correct a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice.
5
U.S. v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997).
6
motions to alter or amend a judgment made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
7
59(a), motions to reconsider are not vehicles permitting the
8
unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented. Nor
9
is a motion to reconsider justified on the basis of new evidence
As with
10
which could have been discovered prior to the court's ruling.
11
Finally, “after thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not constitute
12
an appropriate basis for reconsideration.
13
III. ANALYSIS
14
Plaintiff argues that he reaches a “different conclusion” than
15
the court does on the meaning of Silvas v. E*Trade Marketing, 514
16
F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2008) and 12 C.F.R. § 560.2(b)(10).
17
nothing in plaintiff’s motion establishes error in the court’s
18
reading of Section 560.2(b)(10) to preempt claims based upon the
19
“‘sale, transfer, acquisition, and/or investment in Plaintiff’s
20
mortgages.’”
21
Section 560.2(b)(10) expressly preempts claims that are based upon
22
the “sale or purchase of ... mortgages.”2
As
discussed
in
the
court’s
However,
order,
23
24
25
26
2
The court requested further briefing from the parties on
whether HOLA preemption applied in this case. Dkt. No. 82. Both
parties’ briefing papers advise the court that HOLA preemption does
apply, and the court detects no clear error in its determination
to apply the HOLA standard.
3
1
Moreover,
Section
560.2
preemption
is
known
as
“field
2
preemption,” which has been described as “‘the pinnacle of federal
3
preemption.’”
4
Cir. 2011).
5
preemption regime set forth in Section 560.2, they are “interpreted
6
narrowly,”
7
preemption.”
8
IV.
9
Aguayo v. U.S. Bank, 653 F.3d 912, 921 (9th
Although there are exceptions to the pervasive
and
“[a]ny
doubt
should
be
resolved
in
favor
of
Id.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, and in the court’s August 1,
10
2011 order:
11
1.
DENIED;
12
13
14
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 59), is
2.
This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for
further proceedings.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
DATED:
March 29, 2012.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
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?