Wasito v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER Denying 43 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/27/2017. (knb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANAR WASITO, Case No.: 3:17-cv-01279-BEN Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC; GSAA 5-11; GOLDMAN SACHS MORTGAGE COMPANY; JPM CHASE BANK, 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff has filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order 20 denying a preliminary injunction to postpone a foreclosure sale on his home. The Court 21 denied the preliminary injunction because Plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of 22 success on the merits, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that the public 23 interest favors enjoining the foreclosure. Plaintiff admitted he has not made his monthly 24 mortgage payments since May 2015. He also failed to demonstrate a credible offer of 25 tender. 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(b) provides that a court may relieve a party 27 from an order for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 28 Reversing a prior order under Rule 60(b)(6) is an exercise of a court’s equitable power 1 3:17-cv-01279-BEN 1 that “requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances.” Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 2 1120, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Those circumstances may include an intervening change in 3 law, newly discovered evidence, or that the district court committed clear error and its 4 initial decision was manifestly unjust. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 5 GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). A motion for reconsideration may not 6 be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time that could have been 7 raised earlier in the litigation. Id. 8 9 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 10 regarding its interpretation of the tender rule and in refusing to issue a notice of lis 11 pendens, a state procedural rule. He further contends that he is a disabled veteran and, 12 once he completes “sustainment therapy,” his earnings will increase, which will help him 13 qualify for a loan modification. Plaintiff desires to stay in his home and asserts that he 14 will improve the home to increase its value. 15 Although the Court is sympathetic to the loss of Plaintiff’s home, his arguments 16 are not convincing that a clear error has been made or that the decision is manifestly 17 unjust. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the presence of extraordinary circumstances to 18 warrant overturning the Court’s order denying a preliminary injunction. The Rule 19 60(b)(6) standard has not been met. 20 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: July 27, 2017 24 25 26 27 28 2 3:17-cv-01279-BEN

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?