Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00005/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00005-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

19-CV-5-CAB-AGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FARRAH PIRAHANCHI NAZEMI,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-5-CAB-AGS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

SET ASIDE

[Doc. Nos. 23, 24]

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff Farrah Pirahanchi (Nazemi) filed a “Notice of Intention 

to Move to Set Aside and Vacate and Enter Another And Different Judgment Under Code 

of Civil Procedure Section 663 in California Motion and Motion to Reconsider; First 

Amended Complaint; Verified Evidence for Complaint and Fraued [sic] trial by jury” 

(“motion to set aside”). [Doc. No. 23.] On August 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed additional 

documents in support of the motion to set aside. [Doc. No. 24.] The Court deems the 

motion to set aside to be a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of July 1, 2019 

[Doc. No. 21] granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, 

the motion to set aside is DENIED.

Case 3:19-cv-00005-CAB-AGS Document 25 Filed 08/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-5-CAB-AGS

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

DISCUSSION

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly authorize a motion 

for reconsideration, “(a) district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its 

interlocutory orders prior to the entry of judgment ...” Posthearing Procedures, Cal. 

Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 12-E, §12:158, quoting Smith v. 

Massachusetts, 543 US 462, 475 (2005). However, reconsideration is an “extraordinary 

remedy, to be used sparingly.” Absent highly unusual circumstances, a motion for 

reconsideration will 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.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 

2000)(internal quotes omitted).

Here, Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, nor has she 

shown clear error or an intervening change in the controlling law. Kona Enterprises, 

Inc., 229 F3d at 890. The only “evidence” Plaintiff points to is a “Discharge of Debtor” 

from her bankruptcy. [Doc. No. 23 at 13.] However, the fact that Plaintiff was in 

bankruptcy is not “new.” Moreover, a discharge of debtor is not evidence of ownership 

of the property, nor payment of the debt. The same holds true for the other documents 

submitted by Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 24.] Therefore, there is no basis upon which to grant 

reconsideration.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to set aside is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00005-CAB-AGS Document 25 Filed 08/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2