Dare v. Aegis Wholesale Corporation

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 MICHAEL DARE, Case No.: 15cv2833-JAH (BLM) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. Nos. 73, 14 AEGIS WHOLESALE CORPORATION; 74) US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCATION; [15] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; 16 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et. al, 17 Defendants. [18] 19 INTRODUCTION 20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Dare’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for 21 Reconsideration. After a review of the entire record of this matter, and for the reasons 22 discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 23 BACKGROUND 24 This suit concerns property located at 1800 S. Juniper Street, Escondido, California. 25 Doc. No. 64 at 4. In 2006, Plaintiff refinanced the property with a $400,000 loan from 26 Defendant Aegis Wholesale Corporation and secured it by a Deed of Trust recorded on 27 April 10, 2006. Doc. No. 66-1 at 6. The Deed of Trust named Commonwealth Land Title 28 as Trustee and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the initial 1 beneficiary. Id. In 2011, MERS assigned the Deed of Trust to U.S. Bank, National 2 Association. Id. at 7. U.S. Bank thereafter substituted Sage Point Lender Services, LLC 3 (“Sage Point”) as trustee under the Deed of Trust. Id. at 7. Sage Point recorded a default 4 against the property stating Plaintiff owed $145,198.39 as of April 15, 2014. Id. Nationstar 5 Mortgage LLC(“Nationstar”) is identified as servicer of the Loan in the 2015 Notice of 6 Default. Id. 7 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 8 On February 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen Case and a Third Amended 9 Complaint against the Defendants in the above-captioned case alleging violations of 10 California Business and Professions Code 17200, et. seq. (the “UCL”), and Slander of 11 Title. Doc. Nos. 62, 64. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. No. 65. Defendant 12 Nationstar filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 25, 2019. Doc. No. 66. The motion to 13 dismiss was fully briefed. Doc. Nos. 68, 69. On April 2, 2019, the Court granted 14 Nationstar’s Motion to Dismiss, finding Plaintiff lacks standing to assert a claim under the 15 UCL, and Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege with the required specificity the “who, what, 16 where, how, and why” of Defendant’s misconduct to support a claim under Slander of 17 Title. Doc. No. 71. The Court further determined that Plaintiff’s pleadings cannot be cured 18 and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. Id. 19 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s April 2, 2019, Order dismissing the 20 action as to Defendant Nationstar Mortgage. Doc. No. 73. Plaintiff asserts the Court 21 erroneously granted the motion to dismiss based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 22 Heightened 9(b) heightened pleading standard for fraud despite Plaintiff asserting a claim 23 for Slander of Title. Id. at 3. Plaintiff re-asserts allegations that Bank of America’s 24 assignment of the Deed of Trust to Nationstar Mortgage placed a cloud on Plaintiff’s title, 25 which “was prepared and authorized without any authorization.” Id. Plaintiff also filed a 26 supplemental document to his Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. No 74. Therein, Plaintiff 27 alleges he specifically plead the unfair business practices of Defendant, who is “dealing 28 unfairly with Plaintiff pertaining to the Deed of Trust on his house . . . allowing him 1 standing to defend his contract and property.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff also claims Nationstar is 2 “refusing to provide accurate accounting on Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust, further denying 3 Plaintiff any hope of resolution without expensive litigation” which satisfies the 4 requirement of showing an economic injury to support a claim under the UCL. See id. 5 LEGAL STANDARD 6 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may, upon motion, relieve a 7 party from final judgment or order for: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable 8 neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence. . .; (3) fraud. . ., misrepresentation, or other 9 misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 10 satisfied, released or discharged. . .; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 11 operation of judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). However, a motion for reconsideration 12 “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is 13 presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 14 intervening change in the controlling law.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 15 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Accordingly, a motion for reconsideration is 16 not an appropriate vehicle for rehashing arguments the court has already rejected. Howard 17 v. Gutierrez, 571 F.Supp.2d 145 , 150 n. 1 (D.D.C. 2008). 18 DISCUSSION 19 Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence or an intervening change 20 in controlling law. When evaluating if the Court made a clear error, Plaintiff’s arguments 21 also fail. Plaintiff raises the “same arguments, facts and case law” that this Court already 22 considered, which is insufficient grounds to grant reconsideration. See Wargnier v. 23 National City Mortg. Inc., No. 09cv2721–GPC–BGS, 2013 WL 3810592 , at *2 (S.D. Cal. 24 July 22, 2013) (denying motion for reconsideration where the motion reflected the same 25 arguments, facts, and case law that were previously considered and ruled upon by the 26 court); see also ArchitectureArt LLC v. City of San Diego, No. 15-CV-01592-BAS-NLS, [27] 2017 WL 1346899 , at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017) (denying motion for reconsideration 28 where movant rehashed the same arguments made in its motion for summary judgment). 1 The Motion fails to raise any valid reason for the Court to grant reconsideration, as 2 || Plaintiff’s motion is based solely on facts alleged in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint 3 || and discussed in the Court’s Order. See Doc. Nos. 64, 71. For the same reasons, the high 4 ||standard for granting a motion for reconsideration as articulated by the Ninth Circuit in 5 || Kona Enters is clearly not met here. Finally, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration does 6 || not address the appropriate legal standard for motions for reconsideration and instead relies 7 || upon the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which is not applicable. 8 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff's motion for 10 reconsideration is DENIED.' 1] [13] 14 |}DATED: December 20, 2019 [15] 16 JOHN A. HOUSTON 7 Uhited States District Judge [24] 2] 26 ||! The Court is aware that Plaintiff has filed another Complaint in 19cv1765-JAH (MSB) regarding the same property at issue in the above-captioned case, and naming Nationstar Mortgage as Defendant. The 27 || Court declines to continue indulging Plaintiff's use of the Court as a tactic to prolong potential 28 foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff is warned that any additional motions filed with the Court should only be done if in good faith.