Fields v. Nationstar Mortgage et al

Filing 122

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 77 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 11/30/2015. ~ Fields's motion for reconsideration of this Court's August 31, 2015 Order Granting in Part and De nying in Part Defendant Charter Capital Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Partial Dismissal of Complaint is HEREBY DENIED. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registe red 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
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
)
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC;
CHARTER CAPITAL CORPORATION; )
)
AURORA LOAN SERVICING LLC;
)
AURORA BANK; STRUCTURED
)
ASSETS SECURITIES
CORPORATION, aka SASCO;
)
CITIBANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR )
)
THE SASCO MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES 2005-17 )
POOL GROUP 4; LEHMAN BROTHERS )
)
HOLDINGS INC.; MORTGAGE
)
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
)
SYSTEMS, aka MERS; MERSCORP
)
HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOE
)
ENTITIES 1-5O,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
JANEECE FIELDS,

CIVIL 15-00015 LEK-BMK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On August 31, 2015, this Court issued its Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Charter Capital
Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative,
for Partial Dismissal of Complaint (“8/31/15 Order”).
57.1]

[Dkt. no.

On September 21, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Janeece Fields

(“Fields” or “Plaintiff”) filed a motion for reconsideration of

1

The 8/31/15 Order is also available at 2015 WL 5162469.

the 8/31/15 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”).2
77.]

[Dkt. no.

Defendant Charter Capital Corporation (“Charter Capital”)

and Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) each filed
its memorandum in opposition on October 8, 2015.
97.]

[Dkt. nos. 96,

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, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the
relevant legal authority, Fields’s motion is HEREBY DENIED for
the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The background of the instant case is set forth in the
8/31/15 Order and in this Court’s October 6, 2015 order denying
Charter Capital’s motion for reconsideration of the 8/31/15 Order
(“10/6/15 Order”).

[Dkt. no. 94.3]

This Court will only repeat

the background that is necessary to address the arguments in
Fields’s Motion for Reconsideration.

2

Fields’s motion is titled “Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration of Court’s 9/4/2015 Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Charter Capital’s Motion for Summary Judgment or
Dismissal of Complaint.” This Court did issue an entering order
on September 4, 2015, but it merely set forth the briefing
schedule for another motion for reconsideration of the 8/31/15
Order. It is clear from the content of Fields’s Motion for
Reconsideration that she seeks reconsideration of the 8/31/15
Order, not the September 4, 2015 entering order.
3

The 10/6/15 Order is also available at 2015 WL 5884858.
2

Fields argues that, to the extent that this Court made
rulings in favor of Charter Capital in the 8/31/15 Order, this
Court made multiple errors of law and fact.

In particular,

Fields argues that:
1) her claims regarding fraud in her mortgage documents are not
barred by the statute of limitations;
2) there was not a valid contract between her and Charter
Capital;
3) even if there was a contract, the Truth in Lending Act
(“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., and the Real Estate
Settlement and Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605,
et seq., “required notification of transfer,” regardless of
the terms her mortgage documents; [Motion for
Reconsideration at 2;]
4) there is new evidence that Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB (“Lehman
Brothers”) “never purchased the alleged Note from Charter
Capital Corporation and thus never notified Plaintiff of the
alleged transfer or sale of the alleged loan”; [id. at 2;]
and
5) this Court erred in stating that Fields does not contest the
fact that she entered into a loan agreement with Charter
Capital and that she signed the mortgage and note.
STANDARD
In the 10/6/15 Order, this Court 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,”
3

(2) the district court “committed clear error
or the initial decision was manifestly
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).
[10/6/15 Order at 4.]
DISCUSSION
I.

Timeliness of the Motion
Pursuant to Local Rule 60.1, a motion for

reconsideration asserting “[m]anifest error of law or fact . . .
must be filed and served not more than fourteen (14) days after
the court’s written order is filed.”

Because Fields was served

with the 8/31/15 Order by mail, she had an additional three days
to file her motion for reconsideration.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d)

(“When a party may or must act within a specified time after
service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or
(F), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire
under Rule 6(a).”).4

Fields, however, did not file her Motion

for Reconsideration until September 21, 2015, twenty-one days

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) states: “A paper is served
under this rule by: . . . mailing it to the person’s last known
address – in which event service is complete upon mailing.”
4

after the filing of the 8/31/15 Order.
The copy of the 8/31/15 Order that the Clerk’s Office
mailed to Fields was returned, marked “Return to Sender,
Temporarily Away.”

[Dkt. no. 65.]

On October 1, 2015, Fields

filed a notice stating that she could not file the Motion for
Reconsideration before September 21, 2015 because “from late
August to mid-September Plaintiff received court filings late due
to temporary mail forwarding errors and delays.”
1.]

[Dkt. no. 88 at

She states that she has corrected the error at the post

office, and she has also learned how to access filings through
the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) system.
In light of Fields’s representations, this Court will
consider her Motion for Reconsideration, even though she did not
file it within the period specified under the applicable rules.
This Court reminds Fields that, if she needs an extension of a
another filing deadline, she must file a motion for an extension
or enlargement of time.

See Local Rule LR6.2(b) (“All

applications for extension or enlargement of time made by motion
shall state (1) the total amount of time previously obtained by
extensions or enlargements of time, and (2) the reason for the
particular extension or enlargement requested.”).
The Court now turns to the merits of Fields’s Motion
for Reconsideration.

5

II.

Statute of Limitations
Fields first argues that this Court erred in ruling

that the claims in Counts I and II of the Complaint are barred by
the statute of limitations because: 1) she did not learn about
the falsifications and fabrications in her loan documents until
2012; and 2) her promissory note (“Note”) “was altered sometime
between December 2014 and 7/27/2015[ by] adding new undated
stamped endorsements to and from Lehman Brothers.”

[Motion for

Reconsideration at 2.]
This Court considered Fields’s first argument when it
considered Charter Capital’s motion for summary judgment and
issued the 8/31/15 Order.5

This Court concluded that Counts I

and II were both fraud claims, and the six-year statute of
limitations began to run in August 2005 because Fields had
constructive notice and/or actual notice of the alleged fraud in
her loan documents at that time.

[8/31/15 Order at 10-11.]

Fields merely disagrees with this Court’s ruling, and that
disagreement does not warrant reconsideration.

See Barnes, 16 F.

Supp. 3d at 1183.
Fields’s second argument was not before this Court when
it issued the 8/31/15 Order because the allegation that her Note
was fraudulently altered between December 2014 and July 27, 2015

5

Charter Capital filed its Motion for Summary Judgment or,
in the Alternative, for Partial Dismissal of Complaint (“Motion
for Summary Judgment”) on June 19, 2015. [Dkt. no. 24.]
6

was not contained in Counts I and II of the Complaint.
[Complaint at § X.]

Whether Fields can bring a new fraud claim

based on this allegation is addressed infra Section V.
This Court therefore CONCLUDES that Fields’s Motion for
Reconsideration does not present any ground that warrants
reconsideration of the ruling that Counts I and II of the
Complaint are barred by the statute of limitations.

Fields’s

Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED as to that issue.
III. Contract with Charter Capital
Fields makes similar arguments that: 1) there is no
written contract between her and Charter Capital; and 2) this
Court erred in stating that Fields does not contest the fact that
she entered into a loan agreement with Charter Capital and that
she signed the Mortgage and Note.

As noted in the 8/31/15 Order,

Fields’s Complaint alleged that “Charter Capital fraudulently
included terms in Fields’s Mortgage that were contrary to the
terms that she agreed to when she entered into an oral agreement
regarding the refinancing of her loan.”

[8/31/15 Order at 10.]

In the original Complaint and in connection with Charter
Capital’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Fields did not allege that
her signatures on the Note and Mortgage were forged, and she
acknowledged that she has an outstanding mortgage loan, although
she argued that the true holder of the loan is unclear.

See

8/31/15 Order at 12 (citing Fields Decl. at ¶¶ 4-5 (denying that

7

she signed the Notice of Assignment, Sale and or Transfer and the
Notice of Servicing Transfer Letter); Complaint at § X
(“Plaintiff acknowledges she owes money to someone, but denies
that she owes money to CHARTER or NATIONSTAR and she denies
agreeing the [sic] terms recited in the alleged Mortgage and the
alleged Note.”); Mem. in Opp. at 2 (“Plaintiff owed (and still
owes) money to someone, the real creditor.” (emphasis
omitted))).6

The 8/31/15 Order recognizes that Fields’s position

is that Nationstar cannot enforce the Note and Mortgage because
of alleged fraud in the transfers of the loan.

See id. at 17-20.

Nothing in the instant Motion for Reconsideration
indicates that this Court made manifest errors of law or fact in
summarizing Fields’s allegations and positions in this case.

To

the extent that Fields argues that this Court should reconsider
the 8/31/15 Order because the order made misstatements about her
loan agreement with Charter Capital, the Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED.
IV.

TILA and RESPA
Fields also argues that this Court should reconsider

the 8/31/15 Order because, regardless of the terms of any loan
agreement that she allegedly entered into with Charter Capital,
TILA and RESPA required Charter Capital to provide her with
6

On July 28, 2015, Fields filed her opposition to Charter
Capital’s Motion for Summary Judgment as well as a declaration in
support of her opposition. [Dkt. nos. 39, 40.]
8

written notice of any transfer of her loan.

In the 8/31/15

Order, this Court noted that Fields raised TILA allegations in
sections XIII and XIV of the Complaint, but that those sections
did not set forth affirmative claims.

[8/31/15 Order at 5-6.]

In other words, this Court concluded that Fields’s Complaint did
not allege a claim for failure to provide notices required by
TILA.

Similarly, this Court expressly ruled that, although

Fields alleged in her memorandum in opposition to Charter
Capital’s Motion for Summary Judgment that Charter Capital
violated RESPA, there was no RESPA claim alleged in the
Complaint.

[Id. at 17.]

Thus, the 8/31/15 Order did not address

the merits of Fields’s arguments regarding the failure to provide
notices required under TILA and RESPA.
The Motion for Reconsideration does not present any
ground that warrants reconsideration of this Court’s conclusions
that the Complaint did not allege either a TILA claim or a RESPA
claim.

This Court therefore DENIES Fields’s Motion for

Reconsideration as to her TILA and RESPA arguments.
V.

Newly Discovered Evidence
As noted in the discussion of Fields’s statute of

limitations argument, Fields argues that she has new evidence,
including evidence of the alleged fraudulent alteration of her
Note sometime between December 2014 and July 27, 2015.

She

argues that she could not have addressed this evidence when she

9

filed her original Complaint in January 2015, and she points out
that she filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint.

Fields

filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint on July 28,
2015.

[Dkt. no. 41.]

The magistrate judge denied that motion

without prejudice, stating that Fields could file another motion
for leave to amend, if appropriate, after this Court ruled on her
Motion for Reconsideration.

[Minutes, filed 10/14/15 (dkt. no.

110), at 1.]
Fields’s newly discovered evidence is allegedly
evidence of a separate fraud regarding her loan; it is not new
evidence in support of the fraud that she alleged her original
Complaint.

Thus, the new evidence does not warrant

reconsideration of the 8/31/15 Order.

Instead, if Fields wishes

to add a new claim based on the alleged fraudulent alteration of
her Note between December 2014 and July 27, 2015, she must file a
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).7
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Fields’s motion for
reconsideration of this Court’s August 31, 2015 Order Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Defendant Charter Capital Corporation’s

7

The 8/31/15 Order gave Fields leave to file an amended
complaint by September 30, 2015. [8/31/15 Order at 23-24.] She
filed her First Amended Complaint for Fraud & Misrepresentation
on September 28, 2015. [Dkt. no. 83.]
10

Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Partial
Dismissal of Complaint is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, November 30, 2015.

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

JANEECE FIELDS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, ET AL; CIVIL 15-00015
LEK-BMK; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

11