Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC

Filing 122

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 106 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 08/05/2014. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00088-CMA-MEH
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT/MODIFY
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 59

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.’s
(“LBHI”) Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59, filed on May
7, 2014. (Doc. # 106.) For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff properly filed this motion within Rule 59’s twenty-eight day time limitation.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), “[g]rounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an
intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3)
the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). However, reconsideration “is not
appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have
been raised in prior briefing.” Id.

Plaintiff argues that this Court misapprehended “critical facts” because it, not
Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB (“LBB”), sold the loan at issue to and indemnified1 Freddie
Mac. Yet, if true, this error was caused by Plaintiff’s conduct because Plaintiff admitted
without clarification that “Plaintiff (or LBB) sold this Loan to Freddie Mac on or about
February 27, 2006.” Compare (Doc. # 67, ¶¶ 11) with (Doc. # 68, ¶ 11).
Regardless of whether it was LBHI, and not LBB, that sold the loan to and then
indemnified Freddie Mac, these facts are not material to the Court’s analysis. While
there were several loan transfers to and from various entities, which make the timeline
of this case complicated, the key transfer is the original purchase of the loan by LBB
from Defendant in 2006. Indeed, Plaintiff’s attempt to refocus the Court’s attention to
the later transfer to a third party and indemnification of that third party’s losses is an
attempt to bait this Court into revisiting arguments that it already considered in the
Order. Moreover, this specious argument obfuscates the essential analysis of this
Court’s Order: that at the time of the original purchase of the loan by LBB from
Defendant in January 2006, LBB was a federally chartered savings association, with its
home office in Delaware; and as LBB’s assignor, Plaintiff’s claim accrued when LBB
purchased the loan from Defendant in January 2006. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim is
barred by Delaware’s three-year limitations period.2
1

Plaintiff also points out that it, not LBB indemnified Freddie Mac. Plaintiff takes particular issue
with this Court’s use of the word “repurchased”, rather than “indemnified.” Regardless of the
semantics, this fact does not change the Court’s analysis.

2

Moreover, another court in this district facing a similar fact pattern similarly determined that
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Delaware’s three year statute of limitation. See Lehman Bros.
Holdings Inc. v. Universal Am. Mortgage Co., LLC, No. 13-CV-00090-PAB-MJW, 2014 WL
3258409 (D. Colo. July 8, 2014) (applying New York’s borrowing statute and finding that

2

To expand the scope of the statute of limitations simply because Plaintiff
acquired rights to this loan at a later date would undermine the purpose of a limitations
period. See United States. v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117 (1979) (Statutes of limitations
“are statutes of repose; and although affording plaintiffs what the legislature deems a
reasonable time to present their claims, they protect defendants and the courts from
having to deal with cases in which the search for truth may be seriously impaired by the
loss of evidence” over time.); see also Windsearch, Inc. v. Delafrange, 90 A.D.3d 1223,
1224 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (the assignee of a debt “is not entitled to stand in a better
position than that of its assignor”) (quoting Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC v King, 14
N.Y.3d 410, 416 (2010). Plaintiff’s argument that the statute of limitations accrual date
was not triggered until it indemnified Freddie Mac has been rejected by this Court.
Essentially, Plaintiff’s motion is a thinly-veiled attempt to reargue the arguments
this Court considered, but rejected when it granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. This is an inappropriate use of a Rule 59 motion and accordingly, the Court
declines to grant Plaintiff the relief it seeks.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend/Correct/Modify Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59 (Doc. # 106) is DENIED.

plaintiff’s claim accrued when LBB purchased the loan from defendant, that LBB was a resident
of Delaware at the time, and plaintiff’s claim was barred by Delaware’s three-year statute of
limitations).

3

DATED: August 5, 2014

BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

4