Tracy v. US Bank Home Mortgage

Filing 107

ORDER denying 96 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/27/2017. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ANTHONY M. TRACY, 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 7 8 US BANK, HOME MORTGAGE, NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION, DOES I-X, inclusive and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive, 9 Defendants. 10 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:14-cv-02202-GMN-GWF ORDER 11 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 96), filed by Plaintiff 12 13 14 15 16 Anthony M. Tracy (“Plaintiff”).1 Defendant U.S. Bank, National Association (“U.S. Bank”) filed a response, (ECF No. 98), and Plaintiff filed a reply, (ECF No. 104). For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. I. This case arises out of foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff’s property located at 106 17 18 19 20 21 22 BACKGROUND Boysenberry Lane, Henderson, Nevada 89074 (“the Property”). On October 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in state court against U.S. Bank. (Ex. A to Pet. Removal, ECF No. 1). In December 2014, U.S. Bank removed the case to this Court. (Pet. Removal, ECF No. 1). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting the following claims against U.S. Bank: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 23 24 25 In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status at the time of filing this Motion, the Court has liberally construed his filings, holding him to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 1 Page 1 of 4 1 (3) specific performance; (4) fraud; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Am. 2 Compl. ¶¶ 52–78). 3 On January 25, 2016, U.S. Bank filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all of 4 Plaintiff’s causes of action. (ECF No. 64). The Court heard oral arguments on this motion on 5 September 22, 2016. (ECF No. 92). On September 30, 2016, the Court granted U.S. Bank 6 summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims except the claim for breach of implied covenant 7 of good faith and fair dealing. (ECF No. 93). Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its 8 prior Order granting summary judgment. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 11 circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Reconsideration is 12 appropriate where: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the court 13 committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 14 intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 15 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). However, a motion for reconsideration is not a mechanism 16 for rearguing issues presented in the original filings, Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 17 1388 (9th Cir. 1985), or “advancing theories of the case that could have been presented earlier,” 18 Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D. Tex. 1994). Thus, Rules 19 59(e) and 60(b) are not “intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the 20 judge.” See Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F. Supp. 879, 889 (E.D. Va. 1977). 21 III. 22 DISCUSSION In the instant Motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court erroneously determined that U.S. 23 Bank sent Plaintiff a “written request” for modification of the loan agreement in accordance 24 with the Errors and Omissions Compliance Agreement (“EOCA”). (See Mot. to Reconsider 25 3:4–5:27, ECF No. 96). Plaintiff premises this argument on U.S. Bank’s failure to include the Page 2 of 4 1 word “request” in the revised loan agreement and accompanying letter. (Id.). Based on the 2 Court’s alleged oversight on this issue, Plaintiff argues that the Court should reverse summary 3 judgment as to all claims. 4 In response, U.S. Bank asserts that Plaintiff’s Motion: (1) fails to meet the standards for 5 reconsideration; and (2) improperly advances a new theory regarding whether the revised 6 agreement constituted a “written request.” (See Def.’s Resp. 7:13–9:16, ECF No. 98). U.S. 7 Bank is correct. A motion for reconsideration should not be “used to ask the Court to rethink 8 what it has already thought.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 9 581, 582 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). 10 Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration may not be used to “raise arguments or present 11 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 12 litigation.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 13 Here, Plaintiff does not offer any evidence that was unavailable when the Court decided 14 the summary judgment issue. Rather, Plaintiff relies on the new argument that U.S. Bank did 15 not provide a “written request” under the EOCA. Defendant failed to raise this argument in the 16 briefing on the summary judgment motion. (See Pl.’s Resp. to MSJ 10:2–12:11, ECF No. 71) 17 (asserting that U.S. Bank breached the contract by failing to give Plaintiff a reason for the loan 18 modification and failing to allow Plaintiff the full thirty days to accept the modification). 19 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented proper grounds for reconsideration. 20 Even to the extent the Court does consider Plaintiff’s argument, the Court nonetheless 21 finds that Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit. Notably, Plaintiff provides no legal authority to 22 support the assertion that a request made under the EOCA must contain the word “request” to 23 be effective. As explained in the prior Order, the Court reviewed the documents in question 24 and found the language to be sufficient to satisfy the EOCA. (See Order 6:7–9, ECF No. 93) 25 (citing Ex. K to Pace. Decl., ECF No. 66-11). Having reviewed the record in this case, the Page 3 of 4 1 Court can discern no reason to depart from its prior Order. Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore 2 DENIED. 3 IV. 4 5 6 7 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 96), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a Joint Pretrial Order by October 27, 2017. 8 9 DATED this _____ day of September, 2017. 19 10 11 12 13 __________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 of 4

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?