Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08091/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08091-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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 

Kathy Lee Kerner; and Anthony J. Kuc Jr.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as 

Trustee of the IndyMac INDX Mortgage 

Trust 2007-FLX3, Mortgage Pass-Through 

Certificates, Series 2007-FLX3 Under the 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated 

April 1, 2007, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-11-8091-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 In an order dated July 22, 2011 (Doc. 5), the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint 

(Doc. 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded a related action (Doc. 4 at 

7-15) to state court. Plaintiffs have filed identical documents entitled “objection and 

demand” (Docs. 6, 7), which the Court will construe as motions for reconsideration. For 

reasons that follow, the motions will be denied. 

 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare 

circumstances. Such a motion is denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing 

of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention 

earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 

934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for 

reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, 

Case 3:11-cv-08091-DGC Document 8 Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). 

 Plaintiffs assert that they were not notified of the motion to remand (Doc. 4), but a 

review of the Court’s docket shows that the motion was mailed to Plaintiffs at their 

addresses of record on June 27, 2011. In any event, the Court clearly lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over the wrongful foreclosure complaint and the related forcible entry and 

detainer action. See Doc. 5. 

 Plaintiffs note, correctly, that pro se litigants generally should be granted leave 

to amend and provided an explanation of the complaint’s deficiencies. The Court 

previously explained why the wrongful foreclosure complaint fails to establish federal 

jurisdiction. Doc. 5. The Court finds leave to amend to be futile. Plaintiffs, of course, 

may seek to assert their claim for wrongful foreclosure as a counterclaim in the state 

court action. See Deutsche Bank v. Kerner, No. CV2011-00617 (Ariz. Super. Ct. 

Apr. 18, 2011). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration (Docs. 6, 7) are denied. 

 2. No further motions shall be filed. 

 Dated this 29th day of July, 2011. 

Case 3:11-cv-08091-DGC Document 8 Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 2