Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01549/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01549-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

Patrick S. Hunter; Linda M. Hunter, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

CitiMortgage, Inc.; Federal Home Loan

Mortgage Corp. also known as Freddie

Mac, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-01549-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (doc. 15). This case

arises out of a trustee sale of plaintiffs' home which resulted in their eviction. We granted

defendants' motion to dismiss all five counts (doc.13). Plaintiffs argue that we committed

clear error and were manifestly unjust by failing to allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

Under LR Civ 7.2(g), a court should deny a motion for reconsideration "absent a

showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence." Rule 15(a)(2), Fed R. Civ.

P. instructs that a party can only amend its pleadings, other than as a matter of course, with

the other party's consent or with the court's leave. LR Civ 15.1 requires that a party moving

for leave to amend must attach a copy of the proposed pleading to the motion to amend. An

amendment must not prejudice an opposing party, be sought in bad faith, produce undue

delay, or be futile. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th

Case 2:11-cv-01549-FJM Document 17 Filed 10/20/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Cir. 2006).

 Plaintiffs failed to properly seek leave to amend in their response to defendants'

motion to dismiss because they did not attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as

an exhibit to the motion. See LRCiv. 15.1. Absent that, we could not evaluate whether

amendment would be futile. It was not clear error nor manifestly unjust for the court to

refrain from granting leave to amend when a motion to amend was not properly before this

court.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (doc. 15). 

DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01549-FJM Document 17 Filed 10/20/11 Page 2 of 2