In re: Gabi Kim Collins

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING MOTION SEEKING RECONSIDERATION OF NOVEMBER 25, 2014, ORDER re 47 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 12/15/2014. Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-00453-SOM-BMK, 1:14-cv-00488-SOM-BMK(emt, )CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Gabi Kim Collins served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Additionally, a hard copy of this order shall be served to Ms. Collins at the address of record on December 16, 2014.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
In re

)
)
GABI KIM COLLINS,
)
)
Debtor/
)
Appellant,
)
)
_____________________________ )
)
GABI KIM COLLINS,
)
)
Plaintiff/
)
Appellant,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants/
)
Appellees.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 14-00453 SOM/BMK
ORDER DENYING MOTION SEEKING
RECONSIDERATION OF NOVEMBER
25, 2014, ORDER

CIVIL NO. 14-00488 SOM/BMK

ORDER DENYING MOTION SEEKING RECONSIDERATION
OF NOVEMBER 25, 2014, ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION.
Debtor/Appellant Gabi Kim Collins failed to pay monthly

maintenance fees from late 2009 for a condominium unit she owned
at the Kemoo by the Lake condominium project.

The Association of

Apartment Owners (“AOAO”) for that condominium project placed a
lien on her unit, and then, after Collins’s bankruptcy case was
dismissed, conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure.

Collins asked

this court to stay the nonjudicial foreclosure sale pending
appeal, to vacate and set aside the nonjudicial foreclosure sale,
and to impose monetary sanctions on the AOAO’s attorneys.

In an

order of November 25, 2014, the court denied each of these
requests.

See ECF No. 44.

of that order.

Collins now moves for reconsideration

Because she fails to demonstrate any reason

justifying reconsideration of the order, her motion for
reconsideration is denied.
II.

RECONSIDERATION STANDARD.
A “motion for reconsideration must accomplish two

goals.

First, a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate

reasons why the court should reconsider its prior decision.
Second, a motion for reconsideration must set forth facts or law
of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse
its prior decision.”

Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F.

Supp. 429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996).
Collins seeks relief from an interlocutory order.
Accordingly, her motion is governed by Local Rule 60.1, which
allows such motions based on (a) discovery of new material facts
not previously available, (b) intervening changes in law, and
(c) manifest errors of law or fact.

See also Reliance Ins. Co.

v. Doctors Co., 299 F. Supp. 2d 1131, 1153 (D. Haw. 2004) (noting
that reconsideration motions may be granted when there is a need
to correct a manifest error or to prevent manifest injustice);
Na Mamo O ‘Aha ‘Ino v. Galiher, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1059 (D.
Haw. 1999) (same).

2

Mere disagreement with a previous order is an
insufficient basis for reconsideration, and reconsideration may
not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been
presented at the time of the challenged decision.

Hawaii

Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D.
Haw. 2005).

“Whether or not to grant reconsideration is

committed to the sound discretion of the court.”

Navajo Nation

v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331
F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enter., Inc. v.
Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)).
III.

ANALYSIS.
A.

Collins Fails to Show that the Nonjudicial
Foreclosure Sale is Void.

Citing section 514-A90(a) of Hawaii Revised Statutes,
Collins argues that the AOAO’s right to enforce its lien was
“tolled” such that the AOAO was not allowed to notice the sale of
her property immediately after Collin’s bankruptcy case had been
dismissed.

This argument is identical to the argument she made

in the underlying motions based on section 421J-10.5 of Hawaii
Revised Statutes, which the court rejected.
Like section 421J-10.5, section 514-A90(a) clearly
provides an association of apartment owners with extra time to
file an action to enforce a lien when an owner files for
bankruptcy, tolling the limitations period for 30 days after the

3

automatic stay provision of the bankruptcy code is lifted.
Collins misreads that section when she argues that it provides a
thirty-day grace period for a defaulting owner:
Any proceedings to enforce an association of
apartment owners’ lien for any assessment
shall be instituted within six years after
the assessment became due; provided that if
the owner of an apartment subject to a lien
of the association of apartment owners files
a petition for relief under the United States
Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.),
the period of time for instituting
proceedings to enforce the association of
apartment owners’ lien shall be tolled until
thirty days after the automatic stay of
proceedings under section 362 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 362) is
lifted.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 514-A90(a).

Because section 514-A90(a) did not

prevent the AOAO from conducting nonjudicial foreclosure
proceedings for 30 days after Collins’s bankruptcy was dismissed,
Collins fails to show that the sale is void based on that
statute.
Nor is the nonjudicial foreclosure sale rendered void
because Courtney Brown was not allowed to bid at the public
auction.

This court addressed this argument in its order of

November 25, 2014.

Collins’s disagreement with the order on that

point does not require reconsideration of it.
Stevedores, 363 F. Supp. 2d at 1269.

4

See Hawaii

B.

Reconsideration is Not Justified By Collins’s
Other Arguments.

Collins contends that there are various inaccuracies,
falsities, and procedural improprieties in the sale of her unit.
But Collins does not show that this purported evidence was
unavailable to her such that it justifies reconsideration of the
order of November 25, 2014.

See Hawaii Stevedores, 363 F. Supp.

2d at 1269; Local Rule 60.1(a) (reconsideration of interlocutory
orders may be based on “Discovery of new material facts not
previously available.”).
Even if the court considered that purported evidence,
reconsideration would not be warranted, as Collins does not
establish any possibility of an irreparable injury.

The

underlying motions came before the court in the form of
“emergency motions,” asking the court to stay the foreclosure
sale and to vacate the sale pending adjudication of Collins’s
appeals.

The court treated the motions as motions for a

temporary restraining orders.

To succeed on such motions,

Collins was required to “establish that [s]he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that [s]he is likely to suffer irreparable
harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in h[er] favor, and that an injunction is in the
public interest.”

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555

U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

5

In the court’s order of November 25, 2014, the court
ruled that Collins had failed to demonstrate any irreparable
injury:
Collins admitted that she has not lived in
the Kemoo Property apartment for five years.
This is not a situation in which a debtor is
about to lose a place to live. Moreover, the
AOAO stated at the hearing that, pending this
court’s ruling on Collins’s bankruptcy
appeals, the AOAO will not sell its interest
in the property. If required by this court’s
rulings on Collins’s appeals, the AOAO will
convey the property back to Collins. The
court also notes that at least some of what
Collins seeks is monetary sanctions; money,
being fungible, does not ordinarily serve to
establish irreparable harm. See Cotter v.
Desert Palace, Inc., 880 F.2d 1142, 1145 (9th
Cir. 1989) (noting that money damages are not
normally considered irreparable harm).
ECF No. 44, PageID #s 1088-89.

Collins’s reconsideration motion

makes no attempt to show an irreparable injury.

Given that

failure, she is not entitled to the temporary injunctive relief
she requested––the unwinding of the nonjudicial foreclosure sale
of her unit.

6

IV.

CONCLUSION.
The court denies Collins’s motion seeking

reconsideration of the order of November 25, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 15, 2014.

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

In re Gabi Kim Collins, Civ. No. 14-00453 SOM/BMK, and Gabi Kim Collins v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-00488 SOM/BMK; ORDER DENYING MOTION SEEKING
RECONSIDERATION OF NOVEMBER 25, 2014, ORDER

7