Cantrell et al v. Capital One, N.A.

Filing 42

ORDER Denying 37 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/8/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

JUNE M. CANTRELL, FREDDIE
CANTRELL, JR.,

5

Plaintiffs,
vs.

6
7

CAPITAL ONE, N.A.,

8

Defendant.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-2023-GMN-GWF
ORDER

10
11

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 37), filed by pro se

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs June Cantrell and Freddie Cantrell. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion will
be DENIED.
I.

This case centers upon allegations that Capital One wrongfully foreclosed upon

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ residence, located at 2717 Saint Clair Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 (the
“Property”). See (Compl., ECF No. 1).1 On October 1, 2004, Plaintiffs obtained a mortgage
loan, which was secured by a Deed of Trust on the Property. (Id. ¶ 6). Plaintiffs allege that
Capital One foreclosed upon the Property on May 27, 2015. (Id. ¶ 24). Plaintiffs also allege
that Capital One committed numerous acts of fraud and forgery, and that the Deed of Trust was
illegally transferred prior to the foreclosure sale. See generally (Compl.).

23
24
25

In light of Plaintiffs’ status as pro se litigants, the Court has liberally construed their filings, holding them to
standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007).
1

Page 1 of 3

1

Based on these allegations, the Complaint purported to allege the following causes of

2

action: (1) slander of title, (2) quiet title, (3) wrongful foreclosure, (4) civil conspiracy, (5)

3

Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) violations, (6) predatory lending practices, (7) fraudulent

4

appraisal, (8) breach of contract, (9) fraudulent concealment, (10) breach of the implied

5

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (11) breach of fiduciary duty, and (12) Fair Debt

6

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) violations. (Id.).

7

On April 26, 2016, the Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice pursuant to the

8

doctrine against claim splitting. (Dismissal Order, ECF No. 35). In the instant Motion,

9

Plaintiffs argue that the dismissal was in error.

10

II.

11

LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a standard by which the Court

12

may reconsider its orders. This rule, governing relief from a judgment or order, provides in

13

part:

14
15

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

16

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

17

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been

18

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

19

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

20

misconduct by an opposing party;

21

(4) the judgment is void;

22

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier

23

judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer

24

equitable; or

25

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Page 2 of 3

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Ninth Circuit has distilled the grounds for reconsideration into three

2

primary categories: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) the need to correct clear error or prevent

3

manifest injustice; and (3) an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J v.

4

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

5

III.

6

DISCUSSION
In the instant Motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s dismissal of the Complaint was

7

clearly erroneous. However, instead of addressing the reasoning upon which the dismissal was

8

based, Plaintiffs set forth generalized assertions that the Court’s rulings cannot be impartial

9

because “the little guy always loses.” (Plaintiffs’ Motion 6:7, ECF No. 37). Such assertions fail

10

to present a sufficient basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion will be

11

DENIED.

12

IV.

13
14

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 37),

is DENIED.

15
16

8
DATED this _____ day of August, 2016.

17
18
19

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3 of 3