Anderson et al v. Lehman Brothers Bank FSB et al
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 21 Motion to Set Aside. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 07/03/2012. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
WAYNE AND KIMBERLY ANDERSON,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
RULE 59 MOTION
vs.
LEHMAN BROTHERS BANK, FSB,
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, JAMES
H. WOODALL, TRUSTEE, MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
Case No. 2:11-CV-584 TS
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Wayne and Kimberly Anderson’s Rule 59
Motion.1 For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.
The factual background giving rise to the instant dispute was previously set out in this
Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order on Pending Motions2 (“Memorandum Decision”) and
will not be re-stated in this Order. Through this Motion, Plaintiffs assert that the Court failed to
properly interpret their Complaint and relied on said improper interpretation in granting
1
Docket No. 21.
2
See Docket No. 20.
1
Defendant James H. Woodall’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs move the Court to revise its
Memorandum Decision to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant Woodall without
prejudice.
The Tenth Circuit has stated that the following grounds warrant a motion to reconsider
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e): “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law,
(2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.”3 “Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law. . . . It is not appropriate to
revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior
briefing.”4
Here, Plaintiff once more asserts that § 57-1-23.5 is applicable to this case. Plaintiffs’
arguments are without merit. In it Memorandum Decision, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs’
claims against Defendant Woodall: (1) because Defendant Woodall was properly appointed as a
successor trustee; (2) because § 57-1-23.5 cannot be applied retroactively to Defendant Woodall;
(3) because Plaintiffs’ allegation—that a determination of the promissory note holder is
necessary under § 57-1-23.5 because an unauthorized person is a person not able to deliver
written communications to the lender pursuant to § 57-1-21—is purely conclusory; and (4)
3
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark
Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995)).
4
Id.
2
because Plaintiffs’ reliance on Recontrust’s alleged lack of qualification as a trustee is unavailing
where this Court found Defendant Woodall to be a valid trustee.5
The Court previously considered and rejected the same arguments Plaintiffs raise in this
Motion. For this reason, Plaintiffs have failed to provide a proper grounds for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 59 and the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Rule 59 Motion (Docket No. 21) is DENIED. The Clerk of
Court is directed to close this case forthwith.
DATED July 3, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
5
See Docket No. 20, at 8, 10.
3
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?