Hernandez v. Indymac Bank et al
ORDER denying ECF No. 157 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider and Alter or Amend. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 04/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Member Case: 2-13-cv001431-MMD-CWH
Case No. 2:12-cv-00369-MMD-CWH
INDYMAC BANK, et al.,
This action involves claims for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent a
mortgage foreclosure.1 The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and
Qualify Loan Service Corporation (“Quality Loan”). (ECF No. 154.) In particular, the Court
found that the undisputed evidence shows that Quality Loan was authorized to act as
Deutsche Bank’s agent at the time of the recording of the Notice of Default on March 10,
2009. (ECF No. 155.) Plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider or amend the Order under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“Motion”). (ECF No. 157.) The Court has reviewed Defendants’
response and Quality Loan’s joinder, as well as Plaintiff’s reply. (ECF No 158, 159, 160.)
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.
A motion for reconsideration must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason
why the court should revisit its prior order; and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing
nature” in support of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp.
2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) should not
be granted “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented
1The relevant background facts are recited in the Court’s Order granting summary
judgment. (ECF No. 154.)
with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change
in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571
F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d
656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).
Plaintiff has offered no valid reason for the Court to reconsider or amend its Order.
Plaintiff simply re-asserts the arguments he presented in opposing summary judgment.
However, “[a] motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues
and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A.,
378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005). Mere disagreement with an order is an
insufficient basis for reconsideration. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion.
It is ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and Alter or Amend (ECF No. 157)
DATED THIS 28th day of April 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?