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)

Download PDF
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

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?