Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, et al
ORDER Denying 90 Motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Case No. 2:15-CV-1768 JCM (CWH)
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al.,
Presently before the court is third-party defendant Daunshari Wong-Culotta’s (“Wong”)
motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 90).1
In the instant motion, Wong requests that the court reconsider its order (ECF No. 88)
denying Wong’s (ECF No. 50) and defendant/third-party plaintiff Thomas Jessup, LLC’s
(“Jessup”) (ECF No. 47) motions to dismiss and alter the order to hold the contrary. (ECF No.
90). In support, Wong repeats the same arguments set forth in Wong’s unsuccessful motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 50). (ECF No. 90).
A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered
evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is
an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263
(9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no
later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
The court finds no response necessary.
Rule 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,” however
“the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)
(internal quotations omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments .
. . for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in litigation.” Kona
Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890; see also LR 59-1(b) (“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.
A movant must not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only to the extent) necessary
to explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts. A movant who repeats arguments
will be subject to appropriate sanctions.”).
Wong has not shown that reconsideration is appropriate. The first half of Wong’s motion
merely reproduces the facts and motions to dismiss sections of the court’s order. Compare Order
(ECF No. 88 at 2–3, 8–9) with Motion (ECF No. 90 at 3–4, 5–6). The latter half of Wong’s motion
reasserts that dismissal of Bank of America, N.A.’s (“BANA”) quiet title claim against Jessup is
proper because Jessup did not and does not claim an interest in the property. (ECF No. 90). Based
on that reassertion, Wong then reargues—using the exact language from Wong’s motion to
dismiss—that dismissal of Jessup’s third-party complaint against Wong is proper because “there
is no claim against Jessup in the [c]omplaint” upon which Jessup’s third-party complaint may be
arise. Compare Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50 at 7–8) with Motion for Reconsideration (ECF
No. 90 at 9–11).
In light of the foregoing and for the same reasons set forth in the court’s order (ECF No.
88), Wong’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Wong’s motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 90) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED March 17, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. 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?