Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00773/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00773-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

Patricia Blau, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

America’s Servicing Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-773-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff Patricia Blau’s Motion for

Reconsideration, (Dkt.#109), and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a America’s

Servicing Company’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer, (Dkt.#118). After

reviewing the pleadings and determining oral argument unnecessary, the Court issues the

following Order. 

A district court may alter or amend its judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. However, “[t]he granting of a motion for reconsideration is ‘an

extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.’” Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465

F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). Relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate only

if: (1) “the motion is ‘necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the

Case 2:08-cv-00773-MHM Document 121 Filed 11/24/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

judgment is based’; (2) the moving party presents ‘newly discovered or previously

unavailable evidence’; (3) the motion is necessary to ‘prevent manifest injustice’; (4) there

is an ‘intervening change in controlling law.’” Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R.

Co., 228 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253,

1254 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1999)). “Rule 59(e) . . . ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to

raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of

judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 2617 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2008)

(quoting 11 Wright & Miller, supra, § 2810.1, at pp. 127-128). In deciding whether to grant

a Rule 59(e) motion, a district court has broad discretion, and its decision is reviewed under

an abuse of discretion standard. Stewart v. Wachowski, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1115 (C.D.

Cal. 2006) (citations omitted). 

Here, Blau has made no showing that the Court should revise its September 29, 2009

Order, which granted, in part, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed the instant

motion requesting that the Court amend its dismissal order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

citing the possibility that it may discover potentially relevant “new information.”

Specifically, Plaintiff has asked the Court to “vacate the [Order] and stay the claims against

these parties, pending its expedited discovery requests” because they “could easily lead to

expedited resolution of this case.” As Defendants note, the Court has already determined that

the Plaintiff is unable to state legally cognizable claims against US Bank, MERS, and (with

one exception) Wells Fargo. Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment does not

identify any “new information” that could change this result. Furthermore, although Plaintiff

contends that Defendants have refused to turn over potential relevant documents “in a race

to obtain final orders or judgments before the facts can become known and the merits of the

case are presented,” Plaintiff does not identify what documents have been sought and refused

to be turned over, nor does she identify what information such documents might reveal and

how such information would enable the Court to revisit its September 29, 2009 Order. As

the Parties are aware, a motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, one that is

seldom used and only when justice so requires. Here, Plaintiff has not shown that she is

Case 2:08-cv-00773-MHM Document 121 Filed 11/24/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

entitled to the unusual relief that she requests. As such, her request for reconsideration must

be denied. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff Patricia Blau’s Motion for

Reconsideration, (Dkt.#109).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a

America's Servicing Company's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer, (Dkt.#118).

DATED this 24th day of November, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00773-MHM Document 121 Filed 11/24/09 Page 3 of 3