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