Lyman et al v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. et al

Filing 128

ORDER re application for leave to file motion for reconsideration. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 NOT FOR CITATION 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 EUREKA DIVISION 8 9 CHRISTOPHER GENE LYMAN; JESSICA HELEN O’DANIEL, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 Plaintiff, No. 1:11-CV-00433 NJV ORDER RE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; FIRST NLC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 15 16 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 17 Plaintiffs seek leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order of May 18 15, 2012, dismissing with prejudice their fourth claim for relief based on promissory estoppel. 19 (Docket no. 125.) Plaintiffs allege the existence of newly discovered evidence in the form of an 20 executed copy of the Trial Modification Agreement, which was not available to Plaintiffs at the time 21 of the court’s order. 22 Plaintiffs contend that this newly-discovered evidence is relevant to both their motion for 23 reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing their promissory estoppel claim, and their pending 24 motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. They argue that the same document supports 25 both a claim for breach of contract and a claim for promissory estoppel, as the executed contract 26 constitutes a clear and unambiguous promise in support of these claims. It was this element that the 27 court found missing when it dismissed the promissory estoppel claim. (Docket no. 103.) 28 Local Civil Rule 7-9 (b) requires in part that a party moving for leave to file a motion for reconsideration based on a material difference in fact from what was previously presented to the 1 court, show that “in the exercise of reasonable diligence” the party did not know of such fact at the 2 time of the previous order. In this case, Plaintiffs simply state that the Trial Modification 3 Agreement “was not available” to them at the time of the May 15, 2012 order. The court finds this 4 explanation insufficient to support an application for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 5 Accordingly, the court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiffs fourteen (14) days from the date of 6 entry of this order within which to file a supplementary brief with an appropriate declaration made 7 under penalty of perjury, providing the information required by Local Civil Rule 7-9 (b). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: February 19, 2013 NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?