Agha-Kahn v. Pacific Community Mortgage Inc et al

Filing 166

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 153 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

SALMA AGHA-KHAN, M.D.,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

PACIFIC COMMUNITY MORTGAGE, INC.,
et al.,
Defendant(s).

13

15
16

ORDER

v.

12

14

Case No. 2:16-CV-1124 JCM (NJK)

Presently before the court is plaintiff Salma Agha-Khan’s motion to reconsider this court’s
February 3, 2017, order denying plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint and granting various
motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 153). Multiple responses and joinders to those responses have been
submitted by defendants. (ECF Nos. 155–64). Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 165).

17

I.

Introduction

18

Plaintiff’s motion seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, asserting that this

19

court either erred or abused its discretion by: (1) “applying the legal standard for [plaintiff’s]

20

complaint”; (2) “not allowing Plaintiff to amend and add additional defendants”; (3) “failing to

21
22
23

recognize that since the lender did not exist all transfers, assignments etc of Deed of Trust were
invalid and all such transfers were forged documents recorded to cloud the title”; (4) “failing to
consider recent Ninth Circuit case which equitably tolls the statute of limitations in these wrongful

24

foreclosure actions”; (5) “failing to consider that Plaintiff discovered all of the frauds upon her

25

recent visit to Clark County Recorders office”; and (6) “dismissing all of Plaintiff’s causes of

26

action . . . .” (ECF No. 153 at 3–4).

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

...

1

II.

Legal Standard

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

an intervening change in controlling law.” Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th

7

Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a

9

previous order”; however, “the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

10

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934,

11

945 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted); see also Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Mantor, 417

12

F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that a motion for reconsideration is analyzed under rule

13

59 if filed within that rule’s deadline). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise

14

arguments . . . for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in litigation.”

15

Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890.

16

III.

Discussion

17

The challenged order stated that plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint was so convoluted

18

and non-specific that it risked producing frivolous claims. See (ECF No. 137). Additionally, that

19

order also dismissed plaintiff’s claims as time-barred. See (id.).

20

Plaintiff’s motion fails to offer a non-conclusory argument addressing the court’s reasoning

21

for denying the motion to amend the complaint. See (ECF No. 153). Thus, that holding will not

22

be disturbed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.

23

Similarly, the other substantive portion of plaintiff’s motion quotes various cases at length

24

but hardly applies the provided text to this court’s analysis of the applicable statutes of limitation;

25

moreover, plaintiff also fails to show a persuasive reason for the application of equitable tolling in

26

this case. See (ECF No. 153). Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to relief.

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
5
6

reconsideration (ECF No. 153) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED April 17, 2017.
__________________________________________
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-