Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00723/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00723-2/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

Jonathan B. Woods and Kerrie Woods, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.,

et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-723-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before this Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney General

Intervention, Doc. 52; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order, Doc. 53; (3) Request for

Judicial Notice, Doc. 55; and (4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Amended

Complaint, Doc. 57. Each of these motions is denied. 

The Attorney General of the State of Arizona, upon being served with Plaintiff’s

Motion for Intervention, Doc. 52, has explicitly declined to intervene. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

Motion, to the extent it requires further ruling by this Court, is denied. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Order, Doc 53, does not meet the requirements of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 by raising any sufficient reason on which the Court should relieve the

Plaintiffs from its previous Order. Plaintiffs merely seek to reargue the determinations made

by the Court in its ruling on the motions to dismiss. The motion is, therefore, denied.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is both futile, and procedurally

Case 2:10-cv-00723-GMS Document 66 Filed 10/12/11 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 -

improper in light of the Court’s dismissal with prejudice of the claims against certain

Defendants. The Court has previously given Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, which

was unavailing. See Doc. 23. In any case, the futility of Plaintiffs’ attempt to reassert its

arguments in the form of a request for injunctive relief has only been underlined by the Ninth

Circuit’s recent decision in Cervantes v. Countrywide, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3911031 (9th

Cir. Sep. 7, 2011). Plaintiffs’ Motion is therefore, denied. 

In light of Cervantes and the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ other post-dismissal

motions, Plaintiffs’ request to the Court to take judicial notice of materials is moot. Even

were the Court to take judicial notice of the documents, it does not appear that such notice

would change the Court’s previous determinations. The request for judicial notice, Doc. 55,

is, therefore, denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney General Intervention, Doc. 52, is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Order, Doc. 53, is DENIED.

3. Request for Judicial Notice, Doc. 55, is DENIED.

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint, Doc. 57, is

DENIED.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00723-GMS Document 66 Filed 10/12/11 Page 2 of 2