Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Norlito Soriano v. Countrywide Home Loans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


May 16, 2011

NORLITO SORIANO,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,
SOLIDHOMES FUNDING,
MANUEL CHAVEZ, MARK FLORES, SOLIDHOMES ENTERPRENEURS, INC.,
BANK OF AMERICA CORP., AND DOES 5-100,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Plaintiff has previously submitted two ex parte applications seeking clarification or leave to move for reconsideration of the Court's Orders in this case. In response to these requests and to 20 arguments raised by both parties, the Court has issued two pretrial Orders. See Dkt. Nos. 94, 100. 21

Plaintiff has submitted a third ex parte application seeking clarification or leave to move for 22 reconsideration of the Court's most recent Order, issued on May 10, 2011.

As Plaintiff points out in the ex parte application, reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly" and may only be granted where there is a clear error of law. Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has failed to point out any 26 legal errors in the Order that would justify granting Plaintiff leave to move for reconsideration.

Although Plaintiff states that he believes the May 10, 2011 Order is unclear and in error, the Court believes the Order is sufficiently clear and not erroneous. The Order specifically holds that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff is not entitled to seek attorney's fees as a remedy for a UCL violation.

Plaintiff failed to address this issue or cite any authority in support of his position that attorney's 3 fees are available for UCL violations in his ex parte application.

The Order further states that "Plaintiff is cautioned that on the record presently before the Court, it appears likely that Plaintiff is entitled to no monetary recovery based on the alleged TILA 6 and UCL violations." The Court is not persuaded that any clarification is warranted.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's requests in the ex parte application are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110516

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.