Fields v. Nationstar Mortgage et al
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CHARTER CAPITAL CORPORATIONS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT re 59 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 10/06/2015. (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 served by first class mail on October 7, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC;
CHARTER CAPITAL CORPORATION; )
AURORA LOAN SERVICING LLC;
AURORA BANK; STRUCTURED
CORPORATION, aka SASCO;
CITIBANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR )
THE SASCO MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES 2005-17 )
POOL GROUP 4; LEHMAN BROTHERS )
HOLDINGS INC.; MORTGAGE
SYSTEMS, aka MERS; MERSCORP
HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOE
CIVIL 15-00015 LEK-BMK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
OF 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
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”).
On September 3, 2015, Defendant Charter Capital
Corporation (“Charter Capital”) filed a motion for partial
The 8/31/15 Order is also available at 2015 WL 5162469.
reconsideration of the 8/31/15 Order (“Motion for
[Dkt. no. 59.]
Pro se Plaintiff
Janeece Fields (“Fields”) filed her memorandum in opposition on
September 17, 2015, and Charter Capital filed its reply on
September 30, 2015.
[Dkt. nos. 71, 86.]
on October 5, 2015.
[Dkt. no. 90.]
Fields filed a surreply
Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) filed a statement of no opposition to
the Motion for Reconsideration on September 17, 2015.
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
After careful consideration of the Motion for
Reconsideration, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the
relevant legal authority, Charter Capital’s motion is HEREBY
DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
The instant case arises from a refinancing loan,
secured by a Mortgage, that Fields obtained from Charter Capital
in 2005, and that Nationstar later foreclosed upon.
Complaint, [filed 1/15/15 (dkt. no. 1),] alleges the following
claims: “misrepresentation (‘Count I’); breach of contract
(‘Count II’); fraud, deceit, and concealment (‘Count III’); civil
conspiracy (‘Count IV’); a claim to cancel the Mortgage and the
Nationstar Assignment (‘Count V’); quiet title (‘Count VI’);
‘Equitable Bill Quia Timet’ (‘Count VII’); and unjust enrichment
[8/31/15 Order at 5 (footnotes omitted) (citing
Complaint at § IX).]
This Court “denied summary judgment to Charter Capital
as to Fields’s claims based on Charter Capital’s alleged
fabrication of the Transfer Notices,”2 and “granted summary
judgment in favor of Charter Capital as to all of Fields’s other
claims against it.”
[Id. at 22.]
To the extent that Fields
attempted to base Counts III, IV, V, and VI on Charter Capital’s
alleged fabrication of the Transfer Notices (collectively “the
Notice Fabrication Claims”), this Court dismissed those claims
without prejudice, and gave Fields until September 30, 2015 to
file an amended complaint.3
[Id. at 22-23.]
The “Transfer Notices” are the: Notice of Assignment, Sale
or Transfer of Servicing Rights from Charter Capital to Lehman
Brothers Bank, FSB (“Lehman Brothers”), effective October 1, 2005
(“Notice of Lehman Brothers Assignment”); and the Notice of
Servicing Transfer Letter, dated August 19, 2005, to Plaintiff
from Charter Capital regarding the transfer of her mortgage loan
account to Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Aurora” and “Notice of
Aurora Transfer”). [8/31/15 Order at 14, 17; Charter Capital’s
Concise Statement, filed 6/19/15 (dkt. no. 25), Decl. of Mark
Lachtman, Exhs. G, H.]
This Court notes that Fields filed her First Amended
Complaint for Fraud & Misrepresentation (“Amended Complaint”) on
September 28, 2015. [Dkt. no. 83.] The allegations and claims
in the Amended Complaint are not relevant to the instant Motion
In the instant Motion, Charter Capital argues that this
Court should reconsider the 8/31/15 Order and grant summary
judgment in its favor as to the Notice Fabrication Claims.4
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
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).
Fields also filed a motion for reconsideration of the
8/31/15 Order on September 21, 2015. [Dkt. no. 77.] That motion
is still pending, and the instant Order has no effect on
Charter Capital argues that this Court should have
granted summary judgment in its favor as to the Notice
Fabrication Claims because Charter Capital “had no obligation to
notify Fields, or to obtain her consent, before assigning the
Note to Lehman Brothers and transferring the servicing to
[Mem. in Supp. of Motion for Reconsideration at 2.]
Charter Capital therefore argues that, even if there is an issue
of fact as to “whether or not Fields signed or received the
Transfer Notices,” the issue is not material.
Charter Capital’s argument is misplaced.
acknowledged that whether Fields received the Transfer Notices
was not material, and it expressly stated that the issue did not
preclude it from granting summary judgment as to the Notice
[8/31/15 Order at 16 n.7.]
used one, or both, of the Transfer Notices as part of its sale of
Fields’s loan to Lehman Brothers.
Defendant Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems (“MERS”), as the nominee of Charter Capital
and its successors and assigns, ultimately transferred Fields’s
loan to Nationstar.
Even assuming that Charter Capital was not
required to provide the Notice of Lehman Brothers Assignment to
Fields, the fact remains that it submitted a version of that
document to this Court as evidence to establish part of the
series of transactions involving Fields’s loan.
bears what purports to be Fields’s signature.
has expressly stated that she “do[es] not recall ever seeing [the
Notice of Lehman Brothers Assignment] before these recent
[Decl. of Janeece Fields in Supp. of Pltf.’s Opp. to
Def. Charter Capital’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Fields
Decl.”), filed 7/28/15 (dkt. no. 40), at ¶ 4.]
similar, although not identical, statements regarding the Notice
of Aurora Transfer.
[8/31/15 Order at 14 (citing Fields Decl. at
Thus, this Court found that Fields arguably raised a
genuine issue of fact as to the validity of the Transfer Notices.
[Id. at 17.]
In Counts III through VI of the Complaint, Fields
alleged that the defendants, including Charter Capital, conspired
to defraud her by, inter alia, “engaging in concealment, deceit
and fraudulent misrepresentations and fabrication of documents.”
[Complaint at § XI, p. 4.]
The use of the allegedly fabricated
Transfer Notices in transactions involving Fields’s loan was
arguably within the scope of the allegations in Counts III
This Court therefore found that the genuine issue of
fact as to the authenticity of the Transfer Notices was material
to the Notice Fabrication Claims.
The Motion for Reconsideration does not present any
newly discovered evidence or intervening change in the
controlling law that warrants reconsideration of this Court’s
rulings regarding the Notice Fabrication Claims.
Charter Capital has not established that this Court committed a
clear error of law or fact, nor has it established that the
8/31/15 Order was manifestly unjust.
Charter Capital essentially
disagrees with this Court’s rulings, and that is not grounds for
See Barnes, 16 F. Supp. 3d at 1183.
therefore CONCLUDES that Charter Capital has not established any
ground that warrants reconsideration of the 8/31/15 Order.
On the basis of the foregoing, Charter Capital’s Motion
for Partial Reconsideration of 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, filed September 3, 2015, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, October 6, 2015.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
JANEECE FIELDS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL; CV 15-00015
LEK-BMK; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION OF 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?