Pascua v. OneWest Bank, National Association

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION FOR THE COURT TO REVISIT AND RECONSIDER ITS' PRIOR DECISION AND RULE ACCORDINGLY TO NOTICING THAT THE TWO ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER" re 45 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by JUDG E LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 02/16/2017. There being no remaining claims in this case, this Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to close the case immediately. (eps, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEPa rticipants 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 February 17, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MAGDALENA MARCOS PASCUA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ONEWEST BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
_____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL 16-00016 LEK-KSC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR THE COURT TO REVISIT
AND RECONSIDER ITS’ PRIOR DECISION AND RULE ACCORDINGLY
TO NOTICING THAT THE TWO ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER”
On January 31, 2017, this Court issued its Order
Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative,
for a More Definite Statement (“1/31/17 Order”).

[Dkt. no. 45.]

On February 13, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Magdalena Marcos Pascua
(“Plaintiff”) filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the
1/31/17 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”).1

[Dkt. no. 45.]

The Court has considered the Motion for Reconsideration as a nonhearing matter 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”).

1

Plaintiff filed her “Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1981,
Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
and 18 U.S.C. § 1028” (“Complaint”) on January 15, 2016.

DISCUSSION
This Court has previously stated that 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.” See Davis v. Abercrombie, Civil No.
11-00144 LEK-BMK, 2014 WL 2468348, at *2 (D.
Hawaii June 2, 2014) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). This district court
recognizes three circumstances where it is proper
to grant reconsideration of an order: “(1) when
there has been an intervening change of
controlling law; (2) new evidence has come to
light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Tierney v.
Alo, Civ. No. 12-00059 SOM/KSC, 2013 WL 1858585,
at *1 (D. Hawaii May 1, 2013) (citing School
District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993)). “Mere disagreement with a
previous order is an insufficient basis for
reconsideration.” Davis, 2014 WL 2468348, at *3
n.4 (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Riley v. Nat’l Ass’n of Marine Surveyors, Inc., Civil No. 1400135 LEK-RLP, 2014 WL 4794003, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Sept. 25,
2014).
The majority of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
argues that this Court failed to take into account the fact that
she is proceeding pro se.

It is true that this Court must

liberally construe Plaintiff’s pleadings because she is
proceeding pro se.

See, e.g., Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132,

1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The Supreme Court has instructed the
2

federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful pleading’ of
pro se litigants.” (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365,
102 S. Ct. 700, 701, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982) (per curiam))).
Although not expressly stated in the 1/31/17 Order, this Court
did liberally construe Plaintiff’s Complaint in light of the fact
that she is proceeding pro se.

Thus, to the extent that

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the 1/31/17 Order because this
Court failed to consider her pro se status, the Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED.
Plaintiff also argues that this Court should reconsider
the 1/31/17 Order “because Defendant did not cite res judicata,
or collateral estoppel,” and because the instant case and the
pending foreclosure action against her in state court
(“Foreclosure Action”) “are distinct from each other.”
for Reconsideration at 1.]

[Motion

However, the 1/31/17 Order did not

rely on either res judicata or collateral estoppel.

This Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to the prior exclusive
jurisdiction doctrine.

[1/31/17 Order at 5-9.]

Plaintiff’s

argument regarding res judicata and collateral estoppel does not
show that there has been either an intervening change in the law
or newly discovered evidence since this Court issued the 1/31/17
Order.

Further, her argument does not show that reconsideration

of the 1/31/17 Order is necessary to correct a clear legal error.
As to Plaintiff’s res judicata and collateral estoppel argument,

3

her Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Finally, Plaintiff reiterates her allegation that
Defendant CIT Bank, N.A., formerly known as OneWest Bank N.A.
(“Defendant”) is suing the wrong person in the Foreclosure
Action.

However, the 1/31/17 Order stated that, because of the

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint based on the prior exclusive
jurisdiction doctrine, this Court made no findings or conclusions
about the merits of her claims.

[1/31/17 Order at 9-10 n.4.]

In

other words, this Court could not determine whether or not
Defendant sued the proper party in the Foreclosure Action.

To

the extent that the Motion for Reconsideration argues that this
Court should have addressed Plaintiff’s claims on the merits, the
Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s “Motion for
the Court to Revisit and Reconsider Its’ Prior Decision and Rule
Accordingly to Noticing that the Two Are Distinct from Each
Other,” filed February 13, 2017, is HEREBY DENIED.

There being

no remaining claims in this case, this Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s
Office to close the case immediately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, February 16, 2017.

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

MAGDALENA MARCOS PASCUA VS. ONEWEST BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;
CIVIL 16-00016 LEK-KSC; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR THE
COURT TO REVISIT AND RECONSIDER ITS’ PRIOR DECISION AND RULE
ACCORDINGLY TO NOTICING THAT THE TWO ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH
OTHER”

5