Ghalehtak et al v. Fay Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 15 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FARID GHALEHTAK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

FAY SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

Docket No. 15

Defendants.

11
12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-05976-EMC

13

Plaintiffs request leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order denying

14

their motion for a temporary restraining order. For the reasons below, the motion is DENIED.

15

A.

Legal Standard

16

Under Local Rule 7-9, a party must seek leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration.

17

Local Civ. R. 7-9(a). To prevail, a party “must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing

18

the motion” and show that one of the following conditions is true:

19
20
21

22
23
24
25

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in
fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before
entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought.
The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence
the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law
at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law
occurring after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court
before such interlocutory order.

26

Local Civ. R. 7-9(b). A motion for leave may not “repeat any oral or written argument made by

27

the applying party of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have

28

reconsidered.” Local Civ. R. 7-9(c).

1
2

B.

Discussion
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs do not state whether Defendant Fay has already sold the

3

house at the foreclosure sale scheduled for October 25, 2017. If the sale proceeded and the house

4

was sold, then Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order may be moot. Nevertheless, the

5

Court proceeds to consider Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration on the

6

assumption that the house has not already been sold.

7

First, Plaintiffs argue that the Court has authority under the Erie doctrine to issue a

8

temporary restraining order according to California procedural law. Under the Erie doctrine,

9

“federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.”

(i) jurisdiction here is premised on a federal question, not diversity, because there is not complete

12
For the Northern District of California

Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 2003). This argument is flawed because

11

United States District Court

10

diversity between the parties, see Chan Healthcare Grp., PS v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 844

13

F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2017) and Compl. at 3-4 (alleging Defendant Trustee Corps is a

14

California corporation); (ii) Plaintiffs’ claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15

15

U.S.C. § 1692f(6), arises under federal substantive law, not state law; and (iii) the standard for a

16

preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order is, in any case, procedural, and therefore the

17

federal standard applies under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. See Masters v. Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

18

996 F.Supp.2d 872, 878 n.3 (C.D. Cal. 2014). This Erie doctrine argument does not satisfy the

19

requirements of Local Rule 7-9.

20

Second, Plaintiffs argue that their prior litigation, Ghalehtak v. FBNB I, LLC, Case No.

21

3:15-cv-05821-LB (N.D. Cal.), has no res judicata effect on this litigation because there was no

22

privity between the defendants in both cases. Plaintiffs incorrectly analyze res judicata under

23

California law, but here federal rules would apply because their prior case was brought in federal

24

court. See Sullivan v. First Affiliated Securities, Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1376 (9th Cir. 1987).

25

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ argument that they never contracted with Defendants does not affect whether

26

Defendants here are in privity with FNBN I, LLC for the reasons previously stated by the Court.

27

In any event, whether or not they are correct on the merits of the res judicata issue is immaterial

28

because their temporary restraining order was denied on the independent grounds that the Fair
2

1

Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6), does not provide an injunctive remedy, and

2

they were unlikely to succeed on their claim under the California Homeowners Bill of Rights.

3

Thus, Plaintiffs have not presented a material fact or law supporting reconsideration under Local

4

Civil Rule 7-9.

5

Third, Plaintiffs claim that, after the Court’s order, they became aware of a June 27, 2017

foreclosure proceedings in certain circumstances. Plaintiffs do not, however, show that they did

8

not know of the order by the time of their motion and this Court’s order—October 20 and 25,

9

respectively—despite “the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Local Civ. R. 7-9(a). Nevertheless,

10

based on the excerpts of the consent order submitted by Plaintiffs, that order appears to cover only

11

persons who have submitted complete loss mitigation applications to Defendant Fay under 12

12
For the Northern District of California

consent order issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Board against Defendant Fay to stop

7

United States District Court

6

C.F.R. § 1024.41. At the October 24, 2017 hearing, Plaintiffs acknowledged they had not filed a

13

loss mitigation application. Thus, it appears that, even if Plaintiffs could show they exercised due

14

diligence but nevertheless were unaware of the CFPB order at the time of this Court’s order, that

15

order does not apply to them.

16
17
18

For the reasons above, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show that grounds
exist to merit granting leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
This order disposes of Docket No. 15.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

22
23
24

Dated: November 15, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

3