Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02596/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02596-13/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KHALID KHAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2596-KJM-CKD PS 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Khalid Khan’s motion for 

reconsideration of judgment, ECF No. 40, and order adopting findings and recommendations 

from August 18, 2015, ECF No. 39. ECF No. 41. For reasons explained below, the motion is 

DENIED. 

The August 2015 findings and recommendations found that plaintiff remains 

without standing as stated in the prior March 25, 2015 findings and recommendations, and 

recommended the Third Amended Complaint be dismissed and this action be closed. ECF No. 

37. In the March 2015 findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff 

lacked standing to proceed in this matter, because plaintiff had been in bankruptcy proceedings. 

“Because the bankruptcy trustee has the exclusive right to sue on behalf of the estate, the debtor,” 

plaintiff had lost “the capacity to sue in his own name unless the trustee abandons the claim.” 

Case 2:13-cv-02596-KJM-CKD Document 42 Filed 06/22/16 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

ECF No. 31 at 2. For a trustee to abandon a claim, he must do so with an affirmative act. See id. 

Here, there was no affirmative abandonment. Id. at 3. Between the issuance and adoption of the 

March 2015 findings and recommendations, plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint on 

April 13, 2015. The court adopted in full the March 2015 findings and recommendations, but 

referred the matter back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings in light of the Third 

Amended Complaint. ECF No. 36. As noted above, the magistrate judge then issued the August 

2015 findings and recommendations, finding that the Third Amended Complaint “alleges no 

claims that are not barred by plaintiff’s lack of standing.” ECF No. 37 at 1. On May 17, 2016, 

the court adopted these findings and recommendations, dismissed the Third Amended Complaint, 

and closed the case. ECF No. 39. Subsequently, plaintiff filed the instant motion for 

reconsideration on June 2, 2016. 

A motion for reconsideration filed after ten days from the entry of final judgment 

is treated as a motion under Rule 60(b). See San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority v. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1207 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Rule 60(b) “provides for 

reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or 

(6) extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 

1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). A decision under Rule 60(b) is consigned to the court’s discretion. 

See Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Here, the motion for reconsideration was filed more than ten days from the entry 

of the final judgment. Therefore, the court construes it as brought under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff’s 

motion argues merely that this court has jurisdiction over the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

ECF No. 41 at 2. Plaintiff contends that the court “made [an] error of [j]udgment and error of law 

in contradiction to [f]ederal [c]ourt jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. at 5. Plaintiff’s 

arguments do not address the reasons the court has found a lack of standing here, namely that he 

was in bankruptcy proceedings. Those proceedings ultimately “closed on January 31, 2014 with 

a discharge of debts in the amount of $647,969.35, including the amount of the mortgage which is 

the subject of the instant action.” ECF No. 31 at 2. The Third Amended Complaint provides no 

Case 2:13-cv-02596-KJM-CKD Document 42 Filed 06/22/16 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

allegations to undermine that finding. Plaintiff has not shown any mistake, surprise, or excusable 

neglect with respect to dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint and the closing of this case 

based on his lack of standing. Plaintiff also does not argue the existence of any newly discovered 

evidence, fraud, void judgment, satisfied or discharged judgment, or other “extraordinary 

circumstances.” See Full, 950 F.2d at 1442. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 21, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-02596-KJM-CKD Document 42 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 3