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)

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NOT FOR CITATION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