Ledoux v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A. et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 29 Motion for Reconsideration re: 27 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Scott LeDoux
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-260-JL

JP Morgan Chase, N.A.,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, and Haughey,
Philpot & Laurent, P.A.
ORDER
Plaintiff Scott LeDoux moves this court to reconsider its
decision dismissing his claim to enjoin the defendants from
foreclosing on his mortgage.

See LeDoux v. JP Morgan Chase,

N.A., 2012 DNH 194 (“Order”).

As discussed in the Order, this

claim, at least as pled in the complaint, was premised on the
theory that the defendants never gained legal possession of the
promissory note that LeDoux’s mortgage secures because the
allonge indorsing the note recited an incorrect date for the
note.

See id. at 10-16.

This error, LeDoux contended, either

rendered the allonge ineffective to transfer ownership of the
note or evidenced the fact that the allonge was intended to
indorse some note other than his.

After hearing oral argument on

the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court concluded that
LeDoux lacked standing to challenge the allonge on the former
basis and that the latter basis did not state a claim for relief
that was plausible on its face.

Id. at 15-16.

At the close of oral argument, defendants’ counsel indicated
that he had the original versions of the note with allonge and
various other documents related to LeDoux’s mortgage in his
possession, and informed the court of his intention to return
those documents to his clients in light of the court’s ruling on
the motion to dismiss.

Counsel further informed the court that

although he had invited LeDoux to inspect these documents to
allay any concerns he may have had about their authenticity,
LeDoux had not accepted that invitation.

In response, the court

ordered LeDoux to inspect the documents, on the record, after
adjournment of the hearing.
LeDoux did so, and now, on the basis of that inspection,
moves for reconsideration.

He claims that the version of the

note defendants’ counsel presented for his inspection was a copy,
not the original (which defendants dispute), and that the allonge
was not attached to it (which they do not).

Arguing that “a

party wishing to foreclose must actually possess the original
wet-ink note” and that “an allonge to a promissory note must be
attached to a note in order to effect an indorsement,” LeDoux
asks the court to allow his claim for an injunction against
foreclosure to proceed.1

Memo. in Supp. of Mot. to Reconsider

(document no. 29-1) at 1-2.

The motion is denied.

1

In the Order, the court also dismissed LeDoux’s claim for
fraud. See LeDoux, 2012 DNH 194 at 27-30. LeDoux does not seek
reconsideration of the dismissal of his fraud claim.
2

To be successful, a motion to reconsider must demonstrate
that the court made a “manifest error of fact or law.”
7.2(e).

L.R.

Typically, reconsideration is only warranted when “the

court has misapprehended some material fact or point of law.”
Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006).
LeDoux is not arguing that the court did either of these things;
he is arguing that facts that have recently become known to him
would support relief under theories not pled in his complaint,
and thus not previously presented to the court.

A district court

does not err–-certainly not manifestly–-by not addressing facts
and theories not contained in the pleadings before it.

See,

e.g., Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 104 (1st Cir.
2006).
To the extent LeDoux wishes to pursue any new legal theories
premised on these newly-discovered facts, then he should seek to
amend his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2) to include them–-either by obtaining “the opposing
party’s written consent,” or by filing a motion for leave to
amend the complaint that explains why “justice . . . requires”
the amendment.2

The motion to reconsider3 is DENIED.

2

The court takes no position on the likely success of such a
motion.
3

Document no. 29.
3

SO ORDERED.

Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated:
cc:

December 17 , 2012

Scott LeDoux, pro se
Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

4