Najera v. Federal National Mortgage Association

Filing 18

ORDER Denying 16 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/12/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

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

8
9

2:13-CV-669 JCM (PAL)

Plaintiff(s),

10

v.

11

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

12
13

Defendant(s).

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Fernando Najera’s motion for the court to

17

reconsider its order dismissing his complaint. (Doc. # 16). Defendant Federal National Mortgage

18

Association filed a response in opposition. (Doc. # 17).

19

I.

Background

20

In his complaint, plaintiff put forward causes of action against defendant for intentional

21

misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and quiet title all revolving around a deed of trust

22

to a mortgaged property inhabited by plaintiff. (Doc. # 1-1). Defendant moved for the court to

23

dismiss all claims against it. (Doc. # 5). After finding that plaintiff failed to state any of his claims

24

with sufficient particularity, the court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint. (Doc.

25

# 13).

26

With the instant motion, plaintiff argues that the court should reconsider its decision granting

27

the motion to dismiss because, at the time the court granted the motion, plaintiff was attempting to

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

secure counsel and now plaintiff believes he did not have a chance to argue his claim. (Doc. # 16).

2

II.

Legal Standard

3

A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.”

4

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Reconsideration “is

5

appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear

6

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

7

controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

8

Rule 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,” however “the

9

rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation

10

of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations

11

omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first

12

time when they could reasonably have been raised in the earlier litigation.” Id. (citing Kona Enters.,

13

Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).

14

III.

Analysis

15

Here, plaintiff has not alleged that there is newly discovered of evidence, a change in

16

controlling law, or that this court committed clear error or issued a manifestly unjust ruling. Rather,

17

plaintiff merely disagrees with the court's ruling. Plaintiff provides no basis or additional facts

18

justifying reconsideration of the court's dismissal of his complaint. The purpose of a reconsideration

19

motion is not to allow a party an additional opportunity to present the same unsuccessful arguments,

20

wasting judicial resources and hindering advancement of the litigation, as is the case here. Brown

21

v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).

22

...

23

...

24

...

25

...

26

...

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for

3
4

reconsideration (doc. # 16) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED February 12, 2014.

5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-