United States District Court, E.D. California
RODRICK J. SILAS, Plaintiff,
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING RULE 60 MOTION (DOC. NO. 25)
action was dismissed by order of the court on May 19, 2017.
On June 15, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion on his own behalf
under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking
to vacate the judgment of dismissal. (Doc. No. 25.) Therein,
plaintiff asserts the judgment should be vacated under Rule
60(b)(1) or (b)(6) because the judgment is void. For the
reasons given below, the court denies this motion.
other provisions, Rule 60 allows the court, "[o]n motion
and just terms, " to "relieve a party or . . . from
a final judgment, order, or proceeding, " for
"mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect" and for "any other reason that justifies
relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6). In his motion
plaintiff fails to identify any "mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect" which would provide a
basis for the relief he seeks. Therefore, to the extent
plaintiffs motion is based on Rule 60(b)(1), it must be
denied. Rule 60(b)(6)'s catch-all provision is to be
"used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent
manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where
extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking
timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous
judgment." Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749
(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham &
Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)).
Generally, relief under Rule 60 will be available in three
instances: "1) when there has been an intervening change
of controlling law, 2) new evidence has come to light, or 3)
when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice." United States v. Westlands Water
Dist, 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
Moreover, "[a] motion for reconsideration is not a
vehicle to reargue the motion." Id. (quoting
Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856
pending motion, plaintiff argues that the court's
application of claim preclusion was incorrect because: (1)
his prior state court lawsuit was not based on the federal
Truth in Lending Act  (Doc. No. 25 at 6-7); (2) his state
court claim of wrongful foreclosure was dismissed because he
had not yet been foreclosed on at the time (id. at
7-8); (3) the state court suit did not bring claims under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA")
(id. at 8-9); (4) the defendants in the two suits
are not in privity (id. at 9-10); and (5) the
results of applying claim preclusion would be unjust
(id. at 11).
first argument advanced by plaintiff is frivolous and the
other arguments merely reflect his disagreement with the
court's prior ruling. Because a motion under Rule 60 is
not simply a vehicle to reargue a previously decided motion,
the "party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
disagreement with the Court's decision, and
recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the
court before rendering its original decision fails to carry
the moving party's burden." Westlands Water
Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131 (internal quotations
omitted) (quoting Bermingham, 820 F.Supp. at
856-57). The court previously concluded plaintiffs wrongful
foreclosure and FDCPA claims are based on the same
"primary right" as his prior state law quiet title
and wrongful foreclosure claims were-namely, that he believes
defendants had no authority to foreclose on his home or
collect payments on his mortgage from him because they could
not prove they were lawful owners of the debt. (Doc. No. 23
at 5-6) (quoting Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto, 28
Cal.4th 888, 904 (2002)). Whatever the formulation of the
legal causes of action and their particular posture, it is
clear that plaintiffs central claim-that defendants had no
right to collect debt from him or exercise their security
interest-was previously adjudicated by the state court in a
manner adverse to plaintiff. Moreover, the court already
concluded the parties in the two proceedings were in privity.
(Id. at 8-9.) While plaintiff believes claim
preclusion should not extend to some of the claims he has
brought in this federal action, he has produced neither new
evidence nor an intervening change in controlling law to show
why the court's prior decision with respect to claim
preclusion should not stand. Additionally, plaintiff has not
demonstrated a clear error or how the result here is
manifestly unjust. Rather, plaintiff is merely seeking to
reargue the issues that this court has already decided.
plaintiff asserts the court erred by denying him leave to
amend. The court denied leave to amend because amendment
would be futile in light of the preclusive effect of the
state court decision and the fact that his remaining claims
were either time-barred or could not be saved by amendment.
(Doc. No. 23 at 13.) Plaintiff has failed to present any
argument in his pending motion under Rule 60 suggesting that
the granting of leave to amend would not be futile.
Plaintiffs mere disagreement with the court's prior
ruling is insufficient to warrant relief under Rule 60.
of the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs motion to vacate
the judgment (Doc. No. 25) is denied.
 Plaintiff noticed this motion for
hearing on July 18, 2017. Because the court finds this motion
suitable for resolution without oral argument, that hearing
is hereby vacated. L.R. 230(g).
The court did not find
plaintiff's TILA claims precluded, and instead dismissed
them as time-barred. (See ...