Invest Vegas, LLC v. 21st Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 27

ORDER Granting Defendant's 21 Motion for Reconsideration and Granting Defendant's 24 Motion for Leave to File a Reply. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/15/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

INVEST VEGAS, LLC,

Case No. 2:15-CV-644 JCM (VCF)

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

ORDER

v.
21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendant 21st Mortgage Corporation’s motion for

14

reconsideration. (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff Invest Vegas, LLC, filed a response, (ECF No. 22), and

15

21st filed a reply,1 (ECF No. 23).

16
17

The parties are familiar with the facts of the case, which the court detailed in its order on
defendant’s motion for clarification, and the court will not recite them here.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

(9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

24

Defendant argues that this court’s order denying defendant’s motion for clarification was

25

clear error and will cause manifest injustice. (ECF No. 22). Defendant requests that this court

26

clarify that its order denying plaintiff’s motion to remand was not intended to resolve the effect of

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a late reply. (ECF No. 24). Good cause appearing,
the court will grant the motion.

1

the underlying foreclosure sale on the parties’ competing interests in the subject property. (ECF

2

Nos. 14, 22).

3

“[Courts] may interpret and explain a judgment to guide the parties without express

4

reliance on any particular statute or rule.” Moreno v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co., no. 2:13-

5

cv-00691-KJM-KJN, 2016 WL 3549453, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2016) (citing Bordallo v. Reyes,

6

763 F.2d 1098, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 1985)).

7

This court’s order on plaintiff’s motion to remand denied the motion on the ground that the

8

case presented a substantial federal question. (ECF No. 13). The motion did not ask, and the court

9

did not decide, whether the underlying foreclosure sale extinguished the interest in property held

10

by defendant’s predecessor-in-interest. See id. The court will grant defendant’s motion for

11

reconsideration.2 See Bordallo, 763 F.2d at 1101–02.

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendant’s motion for

14

reconsideration (ECF No. 21) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, consistent with the

15

foregoing.

16
17
18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to file a reply (ECF No. 24) be, and
the same hereby is, GRANTED.
DATED March 15, 2018.

19

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

To reiterate, this order simply clarifies that this court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion
to remand (ECF No. 13) did not decide the legal effect of the foreclosure sale.
2

-2-