Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Francisco Vasquez; et al v. Select Portofolio Services

July 10, 2012

FRANCISCO VASQUEZ; ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SELECT PORTOFOLIO SERVICES, INC.; ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge

** E-filed July 10, 2012 **

NOT FOR CITATION

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION [Re: Docket No. 17]

On December 8, 2011, plaintiffs Francisco, Olga, and Jose Vasquez filed this action against 17 numerous defendants, alleging they held an interest in real property that was fraudulently conveyed 18 by the defendants. As this court detailed in a previous order, plaintiffs have brought a total of four 19 cases in federal court alleging the same facts. Dkt. No. 15 ("Order Dismissing Case with 20 Prejudice"). Each one of these cases has been dismissed. See Dkt. No. 15, pp. 1-2 (detailing the 21 previous cases filed by these plaintiffs). The court determined that this case, like its predecessors, 22 was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Accordingly, 23 it dismissed the action with prejudice and entered a judgment of dismissal. Dkt. Nos. 15, 16. Shortly 24 thereafter, plaintiffs filed this "Objection . . . and Request for Review De Novo or Reconsideration" 25 of this court's dismissal of the case. Dkt. No. 17 ("Objection"). 26

Plaintiffs' Objection is largely incomprehensible, but it does state that plaintiffs "are 27 objecting to whudat [sic] purports to be an order of dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiffs are 28 alleging that the magistrate judge lacked legal authority to enter this order and the actors orchestrating this abuse shall be punished pursuant to civil and criminal law." Dkt. No. 17, pp. 1-2. 2 The objection also contains several pages of predominantly illegible handwritten text. 3

Reconsideration." The court may construe this filing in one of several ways. First, it could construe 5 it as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Civil L. R. 7-9(a). Second, it could construe it as a 6 motion to amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). Finally, the court could construe it as a 7 motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). However, upon consideration of 8 the substance of plaintiffs' Objection, the court concludes that plaintiffs are not entitled to relief 9 under any of the three possible interpretations. 10

First, the court will analyze whether the Objection, construed as a motion for reconsideration, presents a basis for relief. "No party may notice a motion for reconsideration 13 without first obtaining leave of the court to file the motion." Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Plaintiffs did not seek 14 leave of court before filing the ostensible motion for reconsideration. Despite this procedural error, 15 and to give the plaintiffs the benefit of liberal construction for pro se filings, the court further 16 construes the Objection as a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (hereinafter, 17 "motion"). See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 529, 520-21 (1972) (stating that pro se pleadings should 18 be "liberally construed.") 19

(1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court, and the 21 party did not know of such fact or law before entry of the order; (2) new material facts or a change 22 of law occurred after the entry of the order; or (3) the court failed to consider material facts or legal 23 arguments presented before entry of the order. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 24

25 filing their motion for reconsideration as required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), they also failed to 26 make their request before entry of judgment. Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) makes clear that motions for 27 reconsideration may only be made before the entry of judgment. See Dkt. No. 16 (entering judgment 28 of dismissal before plaintiffs filed their motion). Even if these procedural errors were not present,

The so-called objection styles itself an "Objection . . . and Request for Review De Novo or

A. If Plaintiffs' Objection is a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration The moving party in a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration must show that:

Plaintiffs' motion lacks merit. Not only did the plaintiffs fail to obtain leave of court before plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the necessary standard for the court to grant leave to file a motion for 2 reconsideration. Plaintiffs' filing fails to offer any of the three grounds for reconsideration. Instead, 3 plaintiffs simply attempt to re-raise the same claim contained in their complaint-that they have a 4 valid fraudulent conveyance claim over which this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 5

In addition, the motion appears to argue that this court "abused" plaintiffs by "purportedly" 6 dismissing the case and that it deserves to be "punished pursuant to civil and criminal law." There is 7 no evidence to suggest that any of the grounds for reconsideration are present in this motion. 8

Next, the court will consider whether plaintiffs' Objection can be viewed as a motion to 10 amend judgment that would merit granting plaintiffs' requested relief. "A motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed no later than ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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