Dare v. Aegis Wholesale Corporation

Filing 75

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. Nos. 73 , 74 ). Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 12/20/2019. (jrm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL DARE,

Case No.: 15cv2833-JAH (BLM)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

16

AEGIS WHOLESALE CORPORATION;
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCATION;
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et. al,

17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (Doc. Nos. 73,
74)

Defendants.

15

18
19

INTRODUCTION

20

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Dare’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for

21

Reconsideration. After a review of the entire record of this matter, and for the reasons

22

discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

23

BACKGROUND

24

This suit concerns property located at 1800 S. Juniper Street, Escondido, California.

25

Doc. No. 64 at 4. In 2006, Plaintiff refinanced the property with a $400,000 loan from

26

Defendant Aegis Wholesale Corporation and secured it by a Deed of Trust recorded on

27

April 10, 2006. Doc. No. 66-1 at 6. The Deed of Trust named Commonwealth Land Title

28

as Trustee and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the initial
1
15cv2833-JAH (BLM)

1

beneficiary. Id. In 2011, MERS assigned the Deed of Trust to U.S. Bank, National

2

Association. Id. at 7. U.S. Bank thereafter substituted Sage Point Lender Services, LLC

3

(“Sage Point”) as trustee under the Deed of Trust. Id. at 7. Sage Point recorded a default

4

against the property stating Plaintiff owed $145,198.39 as of April 15, 2014. Id. Nationstar

5

Mortgage LLC(“Nationstar”) is identified as servicer of the Loan in the 2015 Notice of

6

Default. Id.

7

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

8

On February 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen Case and a Third Amended

9

Complaint against the Defendants in the above-captioned case alleging violations of

10

California Business and Professions Code 17200, et. seq. (the “UCL”), and Slander of

11

Title. Doc. Nos. 62, 64. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. No. 65. Defendant

12

Nationstar filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 25, 2019. Doc. No. 66. The motion to

13

dismiss was fully briefed. Doc. Nos. 68, 69. On April 2, 2019, the Court granted

14

Nationstar’s Motion to Dismiss, finding Plaintiff lacks standing to assert a claim under the

15

UCL, and Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege with the required specificity the “who, what,

16

where, how, and why” of Defendant’s misconduct to support a claim under Slander of

17

Title. Doc. No. 71. The Court further determined that Plaintiff’s pleadings cannot be cured

18

and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. Id.

19

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s April 2, 2019, Order dismissing the

20

action as to Defendant Nationstar Mortgage. Doc. No. 73. Plaintiff asserts the Court

21

erroneously granted the motion to dismiss based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

22

Heightened 9(b) heightened pleading standard for fraud despite Plaintiff asserting a claim

23

for Slander of Title. Id. at 3. Plaintiff re-asserts allegations that Bank of America’s

24

assignment of the Deed of Trust to Nationstar Mortgage placed a cloud on Plaintiff’s title,

25

which “was prepared and authorized without any authorization.” Id. Plaintiff also filed a

26

supplemental document to his Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. No 74. Therein, Plaintiff

27

alleges he specifically plead the unfair business practices of Defendant, who is “dealing

28

unfairly with Plaintiff pertaining to the Deed of Trust on his house . . . allowing him
2
15cv2833-JAH (BLM)

1

standing to defend his contract and property.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff also claims Nationstar is

2

“refusing to provide accurate accounting on Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust, further denying

3

Plaintiff any hope of resolution without expensive litigation” which satisfies the

4

requirement of showing an economic injury to support a claim under the UCL. See id.

5

LEGAL STANDARD

6

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may, upon motion, relieve a

7

party from final judgment or order for: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

8

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence. . .; (3) fraud. . ., misrepresentation, or other

9

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been

10

satisfied, released or discharged. . .; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the

11

operation of judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). However, a motion for reconsideration

12

“should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is

13

presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

14

intervening change in the controlling law.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d

15

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Accordingly, a motion for reconsideration is

16

not an appropriate vehicle for rehashing arguments the court has already rejected. Howard

17

v. Gutierrez, 571 F.Supp.2d 145, 150 n. 1 (D.D.C. 2008).

18

DISCUSSION

19

Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence or an intervening change

20

in controlling law. When evaluating if the Court made a clear error, Plaintiff’s arguments

21

also fail. Plaintiff raises the “same arguments, facts and case law” that this Court already

22

considered, which is insufficient grounds to grant reconsideration. See Wargnier v.

23

National City Mortg. Inc., No. 09cv2721–GPC–BGS, 2013 WL 3810592, at *2 (S.D. Cal.

24

July 22, 2013) (denying motion for reconsideration where the motion reflected the same

25

arguments, facts, and case law that were previously considered and ruled upon by the

26

court); see also ArchitectureArt LLC v. City of San Diego, No. 15-CV-01592-BAS-NLS,

27

2017 WL 1346899, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017) (denying motion for reconsideration

28

where movant rehashed the same arguments made in its motion for summary judgment).
3
15cv2833-JAH (BLM)

1

The Motion fails to raise any valid reason for the Court to grant reconsideration, as

2

Plaintiff’s motion is based solely on facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint

3

and discussed in the Court’s Order. See Doc. Nos. 64, 71. For the same reasons, the high

4

standard for granting a motion for reconsideration as articulated by the Ninth Circuit in

5

Kona Enters is clearly not met here. Finally, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration does

6

not address the appropriate legal standard for motions for reconsideration and instead relies

7

upon the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which is not applicable.

8

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

9
10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.1

11
12
13
14

DATED:

15

December 20, 2019
_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court is aware that Plaintiff has filed another Complaint in 19cv1765-JAH (MSB) regarding the
same property at issue in the above-captioned case, and naming Nationstar Mortgage as Defendant. The
Court declines to continue indulging Plaintiff's use of the Court as a tactic to prolong potential
foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff is warned that any additional motions filed with the Court should only
be done if in good faith.
4
15cv2833-JAH (BLM)