Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08220/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08220-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cynthia Gray, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Federal National Mortgage Association; 

Generation Mortgage Company, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-08220-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objections and Motion to Alter/Amend 

Order granting Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Quash Lis Pendens (Doc. 22). 

 On March 19, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. (Doc. 27). The same day, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor 

of Defendants. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff filed various objections to the Court’s Order and 

moves to alter and/or amend the Clerk’s Judgment. (Doc. 22). Plaintiff does not specify 

the authority that entitles her to the relief of altering and/or amending the Clerk’s 

Judgment. A motion seeking to alter or amend a judgment may be brought pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e). Plaintiff’s Motion is timely pursuant to Rule 

59(e) because it was filed within 28 days of the entry of Judgment. 

 “A Rule 59(e) motion should not be granted ‘unless the district court is presented 

with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 

change in the controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:12-cv-08220-JAT Document 23 Filed 09/04/13 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2003) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). 

 Plaintiff first argues that the Court erred because it “failed to accept the allegations 

in the pleadings as true.” (Doc. 22 at 2). Although Plaintiff cites various authorities for 

this proposition, Plaintiff does not cite to any facts in her Complaint that the Court failed 

to accept as true. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the Court found that, even if it were to 

accept the well-pled facts in Plaintiff’s complaint as true, Plaintiff failed to state a claim 

upon which relief could be granted. (See Doc. 20 at 4-6). Accordingly, Plaintiff has 

failed to demonstrate that the Court committed clear error and is not entitled to Rule 

59(e) relief based on her argument that the Court “failed to accept the allegations in the 

pleadings as true.” 

 Plaintiff next argues that the Court showed bias to Defendants “by offering the 

defendants [sic] opportunity to amend/add res judicata defense supporting evidence to its 

motion to dismiss filing, yet, did not offer plaintiff [sic] opportunity to file evidence of 

heir status.” (Doc. 22 at 2). First, the Court did not deny Plaintiff the opportunity to file 

evidence of “heir” status. Defendants’ moved to dismiss arguing the Plaintiff lacked 

standing. Plaintiff failed to refute that argument. Moreover, although the Court 

concluded that Plaintiff lacked standing, the Court also determined that Plaintiff failed to 

state a claim upon which relief could be granted and, thus, even assuming Plaintiff could 

now prove that she has standing to bring this action (which she still has not done), 

Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and, thus, 

would nonetheless have been dismissed. 

 Moreover, Plaintiff appears to object to the Court’s Order allowing Defendants to 

supplement their Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 18). In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants 

argued that a review of a complaint Plaintiff filed in Yavapai County Superior Court 

demonstrated that Plaintiff’s case was barred by res judicata. Defendants did not provide 

that complaint to the Court and the Court allowed Defendants to file the complaint with 

the Court or, alternatively, waive their res judicata argument. (Doc. 18). Although 

Defendants ultimately filed the Yavapai County Superior Court complaint into the 

Case 3:12-cv-08220-JAT Document 23 Filed 09/04/13 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Record, the Court did not decide whether Plaintiff’s case was barred by res judicata 

because the Court determined that Plaintiff lacked standing and that Plaintiff failed to 

state a claim upon which relief could be granted in her Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff 

has failed to demonstrate that the Court committed clear error and is not entitled to Rule 

59(e) relief based on her argument that the Court showed bias to Defendants by ordering 

them to file the Yavapai Superior Court complaint into the Record or, alternatively, 

risking waiver of their res judicata argument. 

 Plaintiff next argues that the Court erred by failing to provide Plaintiff the 

opportunity to amend her Complaint. Plaintiff never properly sought leave to amend her 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 or LRCiv 15.1. Moreover, the 

Court found that granting Plaintiff leave to amend would be futile based upon its findings 

that Plaintiff lacked standing and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. Plaintiff has not established that she has standing or that she could state a claim 

upon which relief could be granted. As a result, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that 

the Court committed clear error and is not entitled to Rule 59(e) relief based on her 

argument that the Court improperly determined that allowing her leave to amend her 

complaint would be futile. 

 Plaintiff next argues that the Court showed bias by “accepting the second-hand 

hearsay speculative testimony of counsel in the Motion to dismiss [sic] as true, but failing 

to accept the first-hand testimony of Plaintiff as true.” (Doc. 22 at 4). Plaintiff fails to 

cite to any portion of the Court’s Order where it discussed and/or accepted the 

“testimony” of defense counsel as true or where the Court failed to accept Plaintiff’s 

allegations as true. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court 

committed clear error and is not entitled to Rule 59(e) relief based on this argument. 

 Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s Order granting the Motion to Dismiss and 

Motion to Quash Lis Pendens “is manifest injustice because the Defendant(s) never 

produced the original note to prove real party in interest status to foreclose, nor brought 

forth a competent fact witness in support of dismissal.” (Doc. 22 at 4). This argument 

Case 3:12-cv-08220-JAT Document 23 Filed 09/04/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

repeats allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint. In its Order, the Court found that Plaintiff 

failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted based on such allegations. 

(Doc. 20 at 4-5). Plaintiff’s disagreement with this Court’s reasoning is not a basis for 

Rule 59(e) relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court 

committed clear error and is not entitled to Rule 59(e) relief based on this argument. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections and Motion to Alter/Amend Order 

granting Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Quash Lis Pendens (Doc. 22) is denied. 

 Dated this 4th day of September, 2013. 

 

 

 

Case 3:12-cv-08220-JAT Document 23 Filed 09/04/13 Page 4 of 4