Wasito v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC et al
ORDER Denying 43 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/27/2017. (knb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 3:17-cv-01279-BEN
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING,
LLC; GSAA 5-11; GOLDMAN SACHS
MORTGAGE COMPANY; JPM CHASE
Plaintiff has filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order
denying a preliminary injunction to postpone a foreclosure sale on his home. The Court
denied the preliminary injunction because Plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of
success on the merits, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that the public
interest favors enjoining the foreclosure. Plaintiff admitted he has not made his monthly
mortgage payments since May 2015. He also failed to demonstrate a credible offer of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(b) provides that a court may relieve a party
from an order for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).
Reversing a prior order under Rule 60(b)(6) is an exercise of a court’s equitable power
that “requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances.” Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d
1120, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Those circumstances may include an intervening change in
law, newly discovered evidence, or that the district court committed clear error and its
initial decision was manifestly unjust. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma
GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). A motion for reconsideration may not
be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time that could have been
raised earlier in the litigation. Id.
Here, Plaintiff does not present new evidence or suggest that there has been an
intervening change of law. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the Court made legal errors
regarding its interpretation of the tender rule and in refusing to issue a notice of lis
pendens, a state procedural rule. He further contends that he is a disabled veteran and,
once he completes “sustainment therapy,” his earnings will increase, which will help him
qualify for a loan modification. Plaintiff desires to stay in his home and asserts that he
will improve the home to increase its value.
Although the Court is sympathetic to the loss of Plaintiff’s home, his arguments
are not convincing that a clear error has been made or that the decision is manifestly
unjust. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the presence of extraordinary circumstances to
warrant overturning the Court’s order denying a preliminary injunction. The Rule
60(b)(6) standard has not been met.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 2017
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?