Toromanova v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 51

ORDER Denying 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 06/07/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

DIMITRITZA TOROMANOVA

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; et al.,

13

Defendants.

2:12-cv-1637-LRH-CWH
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is plaintiff Dimitritza Toromanova’s (“Toromanova”) motion for

16

reconsideration of several court orders. Doc. #41.1 Defendants Tiffany K. Labo (“Labo”); National

17

Default Servicing Corporation (“NDSC”); and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)

18

(collectively “defendants”) filed separate oppositions (Doc. ##44, 45, 46) to which Toromanova

19

replied (Doc. #49).

20

I.

Facts and Background

21

Plaintiff Toromanova filed a complaint in state court against defendants for wrongful

22

foreclosure. See Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of

23

diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. In response, defendants filed several motions to dismiss which were

24

granted by the court. See Doc. #35. Thereafter, Toromanova filed the present motion for

25

reconsideration. Doc. #41.

26
1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1
2

II.

Discussion
Toromanova brings her motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A

3

motion under Rule 60(b) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

4

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d

5

887, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 60(b) provides that a district court may reconsider a prior order

6

where the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, fraud, or mistake. FED. R. CIV. P.

7

60(b); see also United States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998); School Dist. No. 1J,

8

Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

9

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that

10

reconsideration of the court’s prior orders is not warranted. In her motion, Toromanova simply

11

states the court’s orders were in error without identifying any legal or factual basis for this claim.

12

Further, Toromanova has failed to show that her allegations relating to her wrongful foreclosure

13

claims were not insufficient. As such, Toromanova has failed to identify any actual error in the

14

court’s prior orders. Accordingly, the court shall deny her motion for relief.

15
16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. #41) is
DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 7th day of June, 2013.

20
21

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
2