Opinion
CASE NO. 1:11-CV-1584 AWI SKO
10-31-2013
GLENN W. BEVER, Plaintiff v. CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORP., et al., Defendants
ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO
ALTER OR AMEND ORDERS
(Doc. Nos. 80, 81)
This is a mortgage related case brought by Plaintiff Glenn Bever ("Bever"). On October 2, 2013, the Court substantially granted a motion to dismiss by Defendants Citimortgage, Inc. and MERS. See Doc. No. 75. The Court dismissed all claims against MERS and found that there was only one plausible claim alleged against Citi, which was a violation of Civil Code § 2923.5. See id. Also on October 2, 2013, the Court granted Bever's motion for a preliminary injunction based on the alleged violation of § 2923.5. See Doc. No. 76. As part of the injunction order, the Court required Bever to pay a $2,800 security, and then pay a $1,400 security on the 11th of each month that this case remains pending.
On October 30, 2013, Bever filed two Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend. One of the motions requests that the Court alter the injunctive order and eliminate the requirement of monthly security. See Doc. No. 80. The other motion requests that the Court reconsider its analysis regarding the quiet title, RESPA, and unjust enrichment causes of action. See Doc. No. 81.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides a mechanism for a court to alter, amend, or vacate a prior order. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e); Hamid v. Price Waterhouse, 51 F.3d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1994); Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir.1994). "While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003); Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2000). "A 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." United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). "Rule 59(e) amendments are appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003); Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890. This standard is a "high hurdle." Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 59(e) motions "may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945; Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890. Stated differently, Rule 59(e) "does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures [or] allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance new arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment." Dimarco-Zappa v. Cabanillas, 238 F.3d 25, 34 (1st Cir. 2001).
After considering Bever's arguments, the Court will not alter or amend either the order of dismissal or the order for preliminary injunction. Bever attempts to either distinguish certain (but not all) cases cited by the Court, reiterates allegations from the Complaint that were considered by the Court, or makes arguments that could have been made during the pendency of the motions. Bever's motions amount to little more than a disagreement with the Court's orders. Because Bever has not done enough to meet the high burden of Rule 59(e), both of Bever's Rule 59(e) motions will be denied. See Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945; Dimarco-Zappa, 238 F.3d at 34; Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890-91; Westlands Water, 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Bever's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the preliminary injunction order (Doc. No. 80) is DENIED; and 2. Bever's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the order of dismissal (Doc. No. 81) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE