Opinion
3:10-cv-0475-LRH-RAM.
May 6, 2011
ORDER
Before the court is plaintiffs Jason Kenneweg and Griselda Garibay's (collectively "plaintiffs") motion for reconsideration of the court's January 4, 2011 order of dismissal (Doc. #24). Doc. #25.
Refers to the court's docket entry number.
I. Facts and Procedural History
In November, 2006, plaintiffs purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of trust originated by defendant Indymac Bank, F.S.B. ("Indymac"). Eventually, plaintiffs defaulted on the mortgage note and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.
Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint in state court against defendants alleging eleven causes of action: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) debt collection violations; (4) Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, NRS 598.0923; (5) Nevada Unfair Lending Practices Act, NRS 598D.100; (6) breach of good faith and fair dealing; (7) NRS 107.080; (8) quiet title; (9) fraud through omission; (10) fraud in the inducement; and (11) unjust enrichment. Doc. #1, Exhibit 2.
In response, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. #7) and a motion to dismiss (Doc. #15) which were granted by the court (Doc. #24). Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the present motion for reconsideration of the court's order of dismissal. Doc. #25.
II. Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #25)
Plaintiffs bring their motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Rule 59(e) provides that a district court may reconsider a prior order where the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, an intervening change of controlling law, manifest injustice, or where the prior order was clearly erroneous. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e); see also United States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
Here, plaintiffs argue that the court misapplied the legal standard concerning their claims and therefore the court's order of dismissal was clearly erroneous. See Doc. #21. However, the court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden for reconsideration under Rule 59. They have not identified any intervening change of controlling law, any misapplication of precedent, or any other legal error underlying the court's order. Further, they have not identified any newly discovered evidence or relevant facts suggesting manifest injustice. Rather, plaintiffs provide the court with the same arguments and legal authority, including two unpublished non-precedential state district court decisions, contained in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. "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) Accordingly, the court shall deny plaintiffs' motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. #25) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.