Troxel v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER re 32 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 10/02/2015. -- Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order, filed September 28, 201 5, is HEREBY DENIED. This Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to close this case immediately, pursuant to the September 8, 2015 Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice and the instant Order. (eps)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 not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
LOREEN DIRECTO TROXEL,
individually,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST )
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE IN TRUST )
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
)
CERTIFICATEHOLDER FOR ARGENT )
SECURITIES TRUST 2006-MI,
)
ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH
)
CERTIFICATES, 2006-MI; JOHN
)
AND JANE DOE; CORPORATIONS OR )
OTHER ENTITIES and DOES 1-100 )
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL 14-00342 LEK-RLP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Loreen Directo
Troxel’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Reconsider Order (“Motion for
Reconsideration”), filed on September 28, 2015.

[Dkt. no. 32.]

The Court has considered this matter as a non-hearing motion
pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice of the
United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local
Rules”).

After careful consideration of the Motion for

Reconsideration and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiff’s
motion is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on July 29, 2014.

On

July 30, 2015, this Court issued its Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for
Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted
(“7/30/15 Order”).1

[Dkt. no. 26.2]

In the 7/30/15 Order, this

Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, but gave
her leave to amend her claim under the Real Estate Settlement and
Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605, et seq., and her state law
claims - fraud, intentional misrepresentation, misleading,
conspiracy, and unfair and deceptive business practices.
18-19.]

[Id. at

This Court cautioned Plaintiff that, if she failed to

file her amended complaint by August 31, 2015, or if she filed an
amended complaint which did not address the issues identified in
the 7/30/15 Order, this Court would dismiss the case with
prejudice.

[Id. at 19.]
On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document titled

“Notice to the Court” (“8/17/15 Filing”).

[Dkt. no. 30.]

In an

1

Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
in Trust for the Benefit of the Certificateholders for Agent
Securities Trust 2006-M1, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2006-M1, erroneously sued as Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Trustee in Trust for the Benefit of the
Certificateholder for Agent Securities Trust 2006-MI, Asset
Backed Pass-Through Certificates, 2006-MI (“Deutsche Bank” or
“Defendant”), filed the motion at issue in the 7/30/15 Order
(“Motion to Dismiss”) on March 18, 2015. [Dkt. no. 12.]
2

The 7/30/15 Order is also available at 2015 WL 4603099.
2

order issued on September 8, 2015 (“9/8/15 Order”), this Court
concluded that, even liberally construing the 8/17/15 Filing, the
document was neither Plaintiff’s amended complaint nor a motion
for an extension of time to file her amended complaint.
no. 31 at 2-3.]

[Dkt.

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to file her

amended complaint by August 31, 2015, and after considering the
relevant factors under Ninth Circuit case law, this Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, and directed the
Clerk’s Office to close the case on September 29, 2015, unless
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration by September 25,
2015.

[Id. at 3-4.]
In the Motion for Reconsideration, which Plaintiff did

not file until September 28, 2015, she asks this Court to, among
other things, vacate the 9/8/15 Order and extend her deadline to
file her amended complaint to March 29, 2016.
STANDARD
This Court has explained the standard applicable to
motions for reconsideration as follows:
A motion for reconsideration must
(1) “demonstrate reasons why the court should
reconsider its prior decision” and (2) “must set
forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.” Hele Ku KB, LLC v. BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP, 873 F. Supp. 2d 1268, 1289 (D. Haw.
2012). The Ninth Circuit has held that
reconsideration is appropriate if (1) the district
court is presented with “newly discovered
evidence,” (2) the district court “committed clear
error or the initial decision was manifestly
3

unjust,” or (3) “if there is an intervening change
in controlling law.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d
805, 807 (9th Cir. 2004).
Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., Civil No.
12-00064 LEK-KSC, 2015 WL 274131, at *2 (D. Hawai`i Jan. 21,
2015) (some citations omitted).

“Mere disagreement with a

previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”
Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, 16 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1183 (D.
Hawai`i 2014) (citation omitted).

Further, this Court will not

grant reconsideration based on evidence or legal arguments that
the party seeking reconsideration could have raised in connection
with the original motion.

Hawaii Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co.,

363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Hawai`i 2005) (some citations
omitted) (citing Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).
DISCUSSION
I.

Timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration
First, this Court notes that the 9/8/15 Order stated

that Plaintiff was required to file any motion for
reconsideration by September 25, 2015.

[9/8/15 Order at 4.]

Plaintiff did not file the instant Motion for Reconsideration
until three days after the deadline.

This Court does not condone

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the deadline, and Plaintiff’s
pro se status does not excuse her from following the applicable
court rules and deadlines.

See Briones v. Riviera Hotel &
4

Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (stating
that “pro se litigants are not excused from following court
rules”).

However, because her filing was only three days late

and there was no prejudice to Deutsche Bank, this Court has
considered the merits of the Motion for Reconsideration.
II.

Merits
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the 9/8/15 Order

because she “has come across newly discovered evidence involving
the validity of the documents that were filed that would show
that the Defendant has committed fraud upon the court and
misrepresented material facts which would have ostensibly led the
court to a different conclusion, ruling and order.”
Reconsideration at 3-4.]

[Motion for

She asserts that the evidence came, in

part, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and she
has a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request pending with
the FBI.

She argues that the requested information “would

provide in greater detail the evidence relevant to this case
which vindicates the Plaintiff’s action and shows that the
Defendant has acted in bad faith and has been engaged in
deceptive and unfair business practices in violation of [Haw.
Rev. Stat.] § 480-2.”

[Id. at 4.]

Plaintiff does not dispute the dismissal of her
Complaint without prejudice in the 7/30/15 Order; she argues that
this Court should reconsider its decision in the 9/8/15 Order to

5

dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff apparently

argues that this Court should give her more time to file her
amended complaint in light of the new evidence that she has
discovered.

Although Plaintiff anticipates receiving additional

evidence in response to her FOIA request, and she does not
currently have access to those materials, she also relies upon
some evidence that is already in her possession.

See Motion for

Reconsideration at 3 (stating that she “has come across newly
discovered evidence” (emphasis added)); id. at 4 (stating that
the response to her FOIA request “would provide in greater detail
the evidence relevant to this case” (emphasis added)).
Plaintiff, however, did not submit - or even describe - the newly
discovered evidence which she has already discovered, nor does
she describe the evidence that she expects to obtain in response
to her FOIA request.

Further, Plaintiff has not explained why

she was unable to present such information in response to the
Motion to Dismiss or in a timely motion for an extension of the
deadline to file her amended complaint.
This Court acknowledges that Plaintiff has a belief or
suspicion that Deutsche Bank committed fraud, but her general
belief or suspicion is not a sufficient ground for this Court to
grant reconsideration of the 9/8/15 Order.

Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled
6

to relief.”

This Court may have a basis to grant Plaintiff’s

Motion for Reconsideration if it established that there was newly
discovered evidence which would allow Plaintiff to amend her
claims so that: 1) each claim contains a short and plain
statement showing that she is entitled to relief; and 2) she
could address the issues identified in the 7/30/15 Order.

The

Motion for Reconsideration, however, does not do so.
This Court emphasizes that it has liberally construed
Plaintiff’s filings, and it has not held them to the same
standards that it would apply to filings submitted through an
attorney.

See, e.g., 9/8/15 Order at 2 (citing Watson v. Carter,

668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).

However, even under these liberal

standards, this Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has
established that there is newly discovered evidence which
warrants reconsideration of the 9/8/15 Order.

Essentially, what

Plaintiff asks for is a six-month extension of the deadline to
file her amended complaint so that she can investigate her claims
and to try to retain an attorney.
3.]

[Motion for Reconsideration at

These are things that Plaintiff should have done before

filing this action or, at the latest, before the expiration of
the deadline to file her amended complaint.

This Court therefore

CONCLUDES that Plaintiff has not established any ground that
warrants reconsideration of the 9/8/15 Order.

7

CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reconsider Order, filed September 28, 2015, is HEREBY DENIED.
This Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to close this case
immediately, pursuant to the September 8, 2015 Order Dismissing
Case with Prejudice and the instant Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, October 2, 2015.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

LOREEN DIRECTO TROXEL VS. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
ET. AL; CIVIL 14-00342 LEK-RLP; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO RECONSIDER ORDER

8