Ditech Financial LLC et al v. Antelope Homeowners' Association et al

Filing 117

ORDER denying 108 MOTION for Reconsideration re 106 Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/10/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:17-cv-02029-RFB-NJK Document 117 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

DITECH FINANCIAL LLC
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION

10

Case No. 2:17-cv-02029-RFB-NJK
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
ANTELOPE HOMEOWNERS’
ASSOCIATION
LEODEGARIO D. SALVADOR
Defendants.

16
17

I.

18

Before the Court is Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador’s (“Salvador”) Motion for

INTRODUCTION

19
Reconsideration. ECF No. 108. For the following reasons, the Court denies the order.
20
21

II.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiffs Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Ditech Financial

23

LLC (“Ditech”) sued Defendants Antelope Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”) and

24

Leodegario D. Salvador dba GDS Financial (“Salvador”) on July 26, 2017. ECF No. 1. Fannie

25
Mae and Ditech sought declaratory relief that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted in 2012
26
27
28

under Chapter 116 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) did not extinguish Fannie Mae’s
interest in a Las Vegas property. Id. To obtain the relief, Plaintiffs asserted five claims in the

Case 2:17-cv-02029-RFB-NJK Document 117 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 3

1

Complaint: (1) declaratory relief under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) against Salvador; (2) quiet title

2

under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) against Salvador; (3) declaratory relief under the Fifth and the

3

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against all Defendants; (4) quiet title

4
5

under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against Salvador;

6

and (5) a declaratory judgment against all Defendants. Id. Salvador answered the complaint on

7

August 8, 2017. ECF No. 12. On March 23, 2018, the Court stayed the case and denied all pending

8

motions without prejudice. ECF No. 69. On August 23, 2018 the Court lifted the stay. ECF No.

9

71.

10
11

Plaintiffs and the HOA both moved for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 73, 85. On

12

September 30, 2019 this Court entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against

13

Defendants on their quiet title claim. ECF No. 106. Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador moved to

14

reconsider the judgment on October 16, 2019. ECF No. 108. Responses were filed. ECF Nos. 111,

15

112. This written order now follows.

16
17

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

18

Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows parties to move to alter or amend

19

a judgment within twenty-eight days of entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Whether or

20

not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v.

21

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

22
23

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

24

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

25

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc.

26

v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation and citation

27

omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence

28

-2-

Case 2:17-cv-02029-RFB-NJK Document 117 Filed 08/10/20 Page 3 of 3

1

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

2

quotation and citation omitted). Moreover, “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored. A

3

movant must not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only to the extent) necessary to

4
5
6

explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts. A movant who repeats arguments will
be subject to appropriate sanctions.” LR 59-1.

7

IV.

8

Defendant Leodgario D. Salvador desires the Court to reconsider its order dismissing all

9

DISCUSSION

claims and counterclaims in this matter after determining that the Federal Foreclosure Bar operated

10
11

to preserve the deed of trust held by Plaintiffs on a Las Vegas property. Defendant, representing

12

himself pro se, specifically argues that the Court’s denial of the cross claims/counterclaims of

13

Salvador should be reconsidered and that the HOA should pay damages to Defendant Salvador.

14

The Court denies Defendant’s motion for reconsideration for two reasons. First, Defendant

15

Salvador brought no cross-claims against the HOA. The Court will not reconsider a judgment on

16
17

claims that were not actually raised in this case. Second, Defendant identifies no clear error,

18

intervening controlling change in the law, or newly discovered evidence that warrants

19

reconsideration of the Court’s prior decision. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion.

20
21

V.

CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador’s Motion for Reconsideration

22
23
24

(ECF No. 108) is DENIED.
DATED: August 10, 2020

25
__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

-3-