Opinion
No. CV-11-8091-PCT-DGC.
July 29, 2011
ORDER
In an order dated July 22, 2011 (Doc. 5), the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded a related action (Doc. 4 at 7-15) to state court. Plaintiffs have filed identical documents entitled "objection and demand" (Docs. 6, 7), which the Court will construe as motions for reconsideration. For reasons that follow, the motions will be denied.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare circumstances. Such a motion is denied "absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence." LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008).
Plaintiffs assert that they were not notified of the motion to remand (Doc. 4), but a review of the Court's docket shows that the motion was mailed to Plaintiffs at their addresses of record on June 27, 2011. In any event, the Court clearly lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the wrongful foreclosure complaint and the related forcible entry and detainer action. See Doc. 5.
Plaintiffs note, correctly, that pro se litigants generally should be granted leave to amend and provided an explanation of the complaint's deficiencies. The Court previously explained why the wrongful foreclosure complaint fails to establish federal jurisdiction. Doc. 5. The Court finds leave to amend to be futile. Plaintiffs, of course, may seek to assert their claim for wrongful foreclosure as a counterclaim in the state court action. See Deutsche Bank v. Kerner, No. CV2011-00617 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Apr. 18, 2011).
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration (Docs. 6, 7) are denied.
2. No further motions shall be filed.