Brenner v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B. et al

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS RECONSIDERATION MOTION OF COURTS ORDERGRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 50) 61 50 . Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 12/17/2010. ~ Brenner remains allowed to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint by the extended deadline of December 28, 2010. Brenner states that the court is "unduly burdening" him "with [the] requirement to amend complaint... and such demands... amounts to another point of involunt ary servitude." Motion for Reconsideration 3, ECF No. 61. Brenner misunderstands the courts previous order. The court gave Brenner the option to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and stated that "Brenner is free to refrai n from filing such a motion." Order Den. Summ. J. 20, ECF No. 50. Unless by December 28, 2010, Brenner files a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, judgment will be automatically entered against him. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants (Steven Brenner) not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry.

Brenner v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B. et al

Doc. 67

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII STEVEN L. BRENNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; ) ONE WEST BANK, F.S.B.; et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________ ) ) CIVIL NO. 10-00113 SOM/BMK ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RECONSIDERATION MOTION OF COURT'S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 50)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RECONSIDERATION MOTION OF COURT'S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 50) I. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff Steven L. Brenner ("Brenner") filed a pro se complaint against Defendants IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. ("IndyMac"), and OneWest Bank, F.S.B. ("OneWest"), alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), and Hawaii Revised Statutes § 656-1, entitlement to injunctive relief, and damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On November 9, 2010, this The court

court granted OneWest's motion for summary judgment.

delayed entry of the judgment, and gave Brenner the option to file an amended complaint by December 8, 2010, to prevent judgment entry. On November 29, 2010, Brenner filed a "Judicial Notice in Support of Petition and Demand to Reverse Judge's Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Written Objections." ECF No. 54.

Dockets.Justia.com

The court construed that document as a reconsideration motion and denied it as untimely. The court extended the deadline by which

Brenner could submit a motion for leave to file an amended complaint from December 8, 2010, to December 28, 2010. Brenner

has instead filed another reconsideration motion with the same title. See ECF No. 61. The court denies the second motion for

reconsideration as untimely and meritless. II. LEGAL STANDARD. A successful motion for reconsideration must accomplish two goals. First, it must demonstrate some reason that the court White v. Sabatino, 424 Second, a motion for

should reconsider its prior decision. F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006).

reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Id. Courts have established three grounds justifying (1) an intervening change in controlling law;

reconsideration:

(2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Id. The District of

Hawaii has implemented these standards in Local Rule 60.1, which states: Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon the following grounds: (a) (b) Discovery of new material facts not previously available; Intervening change in law; 2

(c)

Manifest error of law or fact.

Motions asserted under Subsection (c) of this rule must be filed not more than fourteen (14) days after the court's written order is filed. "Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration." Comeaux v. State of

Hawaii, Civ. No. 06-00341 SOM-BMK, 2007 WL 2300711, at *1 (D. Haw. Aug. 8, 2007) (citing Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572 (D. Haw. 1988)). Furthermore, "reconsideration may

not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision." Id. (citing

Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). "Whether or not to grant reconsideration is White, 424

committed to the sound discretion of the court."

F. Supp. 2d at 1274 (citing Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003)). III. ANALYSIS. First, the reconsideration motion is again untimely. As no judgment has been entered, this appears to be a motion seeking reconsideration from an interlocutory order. Under Local

Rule 60.1, such a motion must be brought within 14 days of the underlying order, which was entered on November 9, 2010. No. 50. See ECF

3

Second, even if this court on its own grants Brenner an extension of the time in which to seek reconsideration, his motion raises no matter establishing (a) discovery of new material facts not previously available, (b) an intervening change in the law, or (c) a manifest error of law or fact, as required by Local Rule 60.1. Local Rule 60.1 mirrors Rule 60 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs reconsideration motions relating to final orders. Brenner brings

the same arguments in his previous motion for reconsideration, see ECF No. 54, as in his current reconsideration. For example,

he argues that the court is subjecting him to involuntary servitude on him and failing to apply correct legal standards. These arguments are not supported by any reasonable reading of applicable law. The reconsideration motion would be denied on

its merits even if timely. Brenner remains allowed to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint by the extended deadline of December 28, 2010. Brenner states that the court is "unduly burdening"

him "with [the] requirement to amend complaint . . . and such demands . . . amounts to another point of involuntary servitude." Motion for Reconsideration ¶ 3, ECF No. 61. misunderstands the court's previous order. Brenner The court gave

Brenner the option to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and stated that "Brenner is free to refrain from filing

4

such a motion."

Order Den. Summ. J. 20, ECF No. 50.

Unless by

December 28, 2010, Brenner files a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, judgment will be automatically entered against him. IV. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Brenner's reconsideration motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 17, 2010

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge

B r e n n e r v. IndyMac Bank, F.S.B; One West Bank, F.S.B. et al., Civ. No. 100 0 1 1 3 SOM/BMK; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RECONSIDERATION MOTION.

5