Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. LaSalle Bank National Association

Filing 208

ORDER Denying 197 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/17/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

8
9
10
11

2:08-CV-1448 JCM (RJJ)

Plaintiff,
v.
LaSALLE BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,

12

Defendant.

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is defendant LaSalle Bank National Association’s motion for

16

reconsideration of order on its motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #197). Plaintiff Wells Fargo

17

Bank, N.A. filed an opposition. (Doc. #199). Defendant filed a reply. (Doc. #201).

18

The court issued an order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on March 3,

19

2011. (Doc. #169). In the instant motion, defendant moves the court to reconsider its earlier

20

decision denying summary judgment with respect to one of plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. #197). In

21

support of its motion, defendant notes that subsequent to this court’s March 3, 2011, order, a district

22

judge in Illinois in a related suit granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on this same issue.

23

(Doc. #197).

24

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

25

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

26

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

27

Cir. 1993); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e); FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Defendant has failed to meet its burden. Defendant has not (1) pointed to any newly

2

discovered evidence, (2) alleged that the court committed clear error or that the initial decision was

3

manifestly unjust, or (3) demonstrated an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dist.

4

No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. At best, defendant has pointed to persuasive authority from a district court

5

outside of the Ninth Circuit. This falls far short of the showing required.

6

Further, at the time this court issued its order denying summary judgment, the court was

7

aware that at least one other district court had granted summary judgment on this issue.

8

Nevertheless, the court stated at oral argument that “there’s an ambiguity in the provision . . . it’s

9

subject to interpretation. I think that’s a matter for trial.” (2/24/2011 Hearing Transcript). Because

10

the court was already aware of at least one conflicting persuasive opinion, defendant’s motion to

11

reconsider based on a subsequent out-of-circuit district court opinion is unconvincing.

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant LaSalle Bank

14

National Association’s motion for reconsideration of order on its motion for summary judgment

15

(doc. #197) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

16

DATED October 17, 2011.

17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-