Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01042/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01042-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 In the Judgment, the Court inadvertently referred to MERS as “Mortgage

Electronic Registration Services, Inc.” 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERMIN SOLIS ANIEL and ERLINDA

ABIBAS ANIEL,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 10-01042 JSW

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

On August 5, 2010, this Court issued an Order granting motions to dismiss, in which it

dismissed certain claims and defendants with prejudice and in which it gave Plaintiffs’ leave to

amend certain other claims, and on that same date the Court entered judgment pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to Defendants Quality Loan Services, Inc. (“Quality”)

and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”)1

On August 13, 2010, Plaintiffs’ filed a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of that Order. Because the Court has entered judgment in favor of MERS and

Quality, and because Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, as to those defendants, the Court

construes the motion as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, pursuant to either Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). It is HEREBY ORDERED that Quality and MERS

shall file an opposition to the motion by no later than September 10, 2010. Plaintiffs may file a

reply by September 17, 2010. 

Case 4:10-cv-01042-JSW Document 93 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

If the Court determines that a hearing is required, it shall notify the parties.

Because no judgment has been entered as to Aurora and McCarthy, the motion is

properly treated as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. At this time, the

Court does not require a response from either Aurora or McCarthy, and the Court shall address

the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration with respect to those

defendants once it has received the briefing from MERS and Quality. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-01042-JSW Document 93 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERMIN SOLIS ANIEL et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC et al,

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: CV10-01042 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 23, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter

listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an

inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Erlinda Abibas Aniel

75 Tobin Clark Drive

Hillsborough, CA 94010

Fermin Solis Aniel

75 Tobin Clark Drive

Hillsborough, CA 94010

Dated: August 23, 2010

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

 By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:10-cv-01042-JSW Document 93 Filed 08/23/10 Page 3 of 3