Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-00369-MMD-CWH Member Case: 2-13-cv001431-MMD-CWH
04-28-2017
JOSE HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. INDYMAC BANK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This action involves claims for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent a mortgage foreclosure. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and Qualify Loan Service Corporation ("Quality Loan"). (ECF No. 154.) In particular, the Court found that the undisputed evidence shows that Quality Loan was authorized to act as Deutsche Bank's agent at the time of the recording of the Notice of Default on March 10, 2009. (ECF No. 155.) Plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider or amend the Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ("Motion"). (ECF No. 157.) The Court has reviewed Defendants' response and Quality Loan's joinder, as well as Plaintiff's reply. (ECF No 158, 159, 160.) For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion is denied.
The relevant background facts are recited in the Court's Order granting summary judgment. (ECF No. 154.) --------
A motion for reconsideration must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason why the court should revisit its prior order; and (2) facts or law of a "strongly convincing nature" in support of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) 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." Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).
Plaintiff has offered no valid reason for the Court to reconsider or amend its Order. Plaintiff simply re-asserts the arguments he presented in opposing summary judgment. However, "[a] motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled." Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff's Motion.
It is ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider and Alter or Amend (ECF No. 157) is denied.
DATED THIS 28th day of April 2017.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE