Orman v. Central Loan Administration & Reporting

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Leslie E. Orman, No. CV-19-04756-PHX-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Central Loan Administration & Reporting, et al., [13] Respondents. [14] 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Leslie Orman’s motion for reconsideration 16 and motion to seal her motion for reconsideration. (Docs. 55, 56.) She seeks 17 reconsideration of the Court’s February 26, 2020 order that she pay $9,709.54 in sanctions 18 to Respondent Central Loan Administration & Reporting (“Cenlar”) and pay $17,065.95 19 in sanctions to Respondent CitiMortgage Inc. (“Citi,” and collectively, “Respondents”). 20 (Doc. 54 at 14.) Specifically, Orman claims she is unable to satisfy the sanctions order due 21 to her limited income and inability to pay. (Doc. 56 at 1-2.) For the following reasons, the 22 Court will grant the motion to seal in part and deny the motion for reconsideration. 23 The factual and legal background of this case is detailed in the Court’s December 24 16, 2020 order. (Doc. 39.) In a nutshell, Orman sought confirmation of a $10.3 million 25 arbitration award that was based on a legally nonexistent contract. Because the arbitration 26 “agreement” had never been agreed to, the Court vacated the award. (Id. at 8-9.) The 27 Court also determined that Orman’s motion to confirm had been filed in bad faith and, as 28 a result, sanctions were appropriate. (Id. at 9-13.) The Court determined that Orman would 1 be responsible for 90% of Respondents’ attorneys fees and directed Respondents to file an 2 itemized statement of the legal services provided in this case within 14 days. (Id. at 123 14.) 4 On December 30, 2020, Respondents submitted their fee request. (Doc. 42.) After 5 considering their itemized statements and Orman’s objections thereto (Doc. 46), the Court 6 awarded $9,709.54 to Cenlar and $17,065.95. (Doc. 54 at 14.) Orman now seeks 7 reconsideration of that award, arguing that she in unable to pay and that “the Court misread 8 its own order” in determining the due date for Respondents’ fee submission. (Doc. 56.) 9 I. Motion To Seal 10 As an initial matter, Orman seeks to seal her motion for reconsideration because it 11 contains her Social Security number. (Doc. 55.) Under Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules 12 of Civil Procedure, a party filing a motion containing a Social Security number ordinarily 13 should submit an unsealed, redacted version of that document, rather than filing an 14 unredacted version and seeking to seal it. However, in the interest of expediency, the Court 15 will grant the motion in part. The entire document need not be sealed—only the portion 16 that contains Orman’s Social Security number. Accordingly, the Court will order that 17 Exhibit 1 of Doc. 56 be filed under seal, and the rest of the document will remain unsealed. 18 II. Motion For Reconsideration 19 Under LRCiv. 7.2, the Court will grant a motion for reconsideration if: (1) “[t]here 20 are material differences in fact or law from that presented to the Court” that the moving 21 party could not have known at the time of the Court’s decision; (2) “[t]here are new material 22 facts that happened after the Court’s decision”; (3) there was a change in law after the 23 Court’s decision; or (4) the moving party makes a “convincing showing that the Court 24 failed to consider material facts presented to the Court.” Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Western 25 Support Group, 2013 WL 2369919 , *1-2 (D. Ariz. 2013) 26 Orman primarily argues that the Court should reconsider its fee award because she 27 is unable to pay the sanctions levied against her. (Doc. 56 at 1-2.) She has limited income 28 derived from Social Security and the sanctions imposed exceed her annual income. (Id.) 1 In fact, she argues, the sanctions imposed exceed her total assets. (Id.) 2 The trouble is that Orman’s financial situation and the amount of fees sought by 3 Respondents are not information that Orman couldn’t have known at the time she filed her 4 objections to Respondents’ fee request. Nor are they new facts that occurred after the Court 5 entered its order. Honeywell Int’l, 2013 WL 2369919 at *1-2. At the time the Court was 6 considering Respondents’ fee request, Orman knew both how much they were seeking and 7 whether she had the ability to pay. Additionally, before Orman’s objections were due, the 8 Court issued an order that specifically noted that the sanctioned parties could raise 9 “inability to pay” as a defense. (Doc. 45 at 3.) It therefore fell on Orman to bring her 10 inability to pay to the Court’s attention in her objections. Gaskell v. Weir, 10 F.3d 626 , 11 629 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he sanctioned party has the burden to produce evidence of inability 12 to pay.”). After all, “the sanctioned party knows best his or her financial situation.” Id. 13 As a result, reconsideration is not warranted on this point—Orman had an opportunity to 14 present this information to the Court. That opportunity has passed. 15 Orman also argues that the “Court misread its own order” and incorrectly considered 16 Respondents’ fee submission because it was filed after the due date, which Orman argues 17 was 14 days from when the order was signed. The Court considered and rejected this 18 argument in its order awarding sanctions. (Doc. 56 at 7.) An order becomes effective at, 19 and due dates run from, the time an order is entered on the civil docket. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 20 58(c). See also Cannella v. Lentz, 396 F. Supp. 2d 435, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). 21 Finally, Orman asserts that she did not receive Respondents’ supporting 22 documentation until January 4, 2020, which meant that it was late no matter what. (Doc. 23 56 at 3.) This argument is unavailing. If Orman thought the documentation was late no 24 matter what, she could have so argued in her original objection. She did not. (Doc. 46.) 25 In fact, in that objection, Orman states that “Respondent’s (sic) spreadsheets were emailed 26 to . . . Orman . . . four (4) days after the time specified in the Court’s order.” (Id. at 2.) 27 Because Orman believed the due date was December 26, 2019, four days after was 28 December 30, 2019. (Id.) In other words, Orman has already admitted that she timely 1 || received Respondents’ supporting documentation. Respondents have also represented that || they timely provided this information to Orman twice. (Doc. 47 at 3-4.) 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 4 (1) | Orman’s motion to seal (Doc. 55) is granted in part. The Clerk of the Court || is directed to file Exhibit 1 of Doc. 56 under seal; and 6 (2) | Orman’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 7 Dated this 13th day of March, 2020. [8] 9 Po 11 United States District Judge [12] 13 Ce: Jeremy Claridge [14] 1405 W. 16 " Street, Suite G 15 Yuma, AZ 85364 [28] -4-