Soriano v. Countrywide Homes Loans, Inc. et al

Filing 105

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 101 Ex Parte Application. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

NORLITO SORIANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,
SOLIDHOMES FUNDING, MANUEL
CHAVEZ, MARK FLORES, SOLIDHOMES
ENTERPRENEURS, INC., BANK OF
AMERICA CORP., AND DOES 5-100,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 09-CV-02415-LHK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION

Plaintiff has previously submitted two ex parte applications seeking clarification or leave to

19

move for reconsideration of the Court’s Orders in this case. In response to these requests and to

20

arguments raised by both parties, the Court has issued two pretrial Orders. See Dkt. Nos. 94, 100.

21

Plaintiff has submitted a third ex parte application seeking clarification or leave to move for

22

reconsideration of the Court’s most recent Order, issued on May 10, 2011.

23

As Plaintiff points out in the ex parte application, reconsideration is an “extraordinary

24

remedy to be used sparingly” and may only be granted where there is a clear error of law. Kona

25

Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has failed to point out any

26

legal errors in the Order that would justify granting Plaintiff leave to move for reconsideration.

27
28

Although Plaintiff states that he believes the May 10, 2011 Order is unclear and in error, the
Court believes the Order is sufficiently clear and not erroneous. The Order specifically holds that,
1
Case No.: 09-CV-02415-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION

1

as a matter of law, Plaintiff is not entitled to seek attorney’s fees as a remedy for a UCL violation.

2

Plaintiff failed to address this issue or cite any authority in support of his position that attorney’s

3

fees are available for UCL violations in his ex parte application.

4

The Order further states that “Plaintiff is cautioned that on the record presently before the

5

Court, it appears likely that Plaintiff is entitled to no monetary recovery based on the alleged TILA

6

and UCL violations.” The Court is not persuaded that any clarification is warranted.

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests in the ex parte application are DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: May 16, 2011

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 09-CV-02415-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge