Eng v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER by Judge William Alsup [denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MARTIN ENG,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. C 12-05062 WHA

v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA; J.P.
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; CALIFORNIA
RECONVEYANCE CO.; QUALITY LOAN
SERVICE CORP.; LA SALLE BANK NATIONAL
ASSOC.; and DOES 1–20, Inclusive,

ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO
RECONSIDER

Defendants.

17

/

18

Pro se plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider requesting the undersigned to “reconsider the

19

rulings for Defendant of Judgments on their motions” (Br. 1). Although labeled as a motion to

20

reconsider, because final judgment has already been issued in this action, this order will construe

21

plaintiff’s motion as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e).

22

By order dated February 14, this action was dismissed with prejudice because res judicata

23

barred plaintiff’s claims (Dkt. No. 37-4). In addition, plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant

24

and a pre-filing review order has issued, requiring review of any future pro se complaints filed

25

by plaintiff against any of the defendants in this action or on the foreclosure of the Lombard

26

property (id. at 8–9).

27

Plaintiff provides two reasons for why the February 14 order should be amended.

28

First, plaintiff seems to argue that the order’s finding that the $434,495,100 loan was a typo was

1

in error and could be proven as such at trial (Br. 2). Second, plaintiff contends that “there are

2

sufficient grounds to move the case forward” (ibid.). Neither of these arguments are persuasive.

3

The February 14 order found plaintiff’s claim that the $434,495,100 loan was a typo

Plaintiff even specified the date of the loan, and this was not accurate either (ibid.). At the

6

February 14 hearing, plaintiff claimed that he had someone else type his complaint (Tr. 10).

7

Even if this is true, plaintiff is still required to read through his own complaint before filing.

8

Finally, even if plaintiff could possibly be excused from his error in specifying the wrong loan,

9

this action would still have been dismissed because res judicata applies. The February 14 order

10

analyzed whether plaintiff’s claims could stand under the actual loan and found that “res judicata

11
For the Northern District of California

was not credible because the numbers of the two loans did not relate at all (Dkt. No. 37-7).

5

United States District Court

4

would apply to any action regarding the foreclosure of the Lombard property” (Dkt. No. 37-4).

12

In his brief, plaintiff fails to specify what grounds exist for allowing this action to proceed and

13

fails to argue why res judicata would not apply. In short, even if plaintiff could prove that filing

14

suit under the $434,495,100 loan was excusable error, the order would still stand because res

15

judicata applies.

16

Because plaintiff’s complaint was barred by res judicata and he had filed the same action

17

multiple times, the order found plaintiff to be harassing (id. at 7). The order even stated that

18

refiling the same complaint “is vexatious in of itself and is dispositive” (ibid.). Plaintiff argues

19

for reconsideration because declaring him vexatious “is a major destroyer of one’s life” (Br. 2).

20

The standards for declaring a party vexatious are high, but the order correctly applied those

21

standards, and plaintiff offers no reason why declaring him vexatious was in error.

22
23

The instant motion offers nothing to justify reconsideration of either the order dismissing
the action or declaring plaintiff vexatious. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26

Dated: March 6, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2