Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01463/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01463-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

Thomas E. Russell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

OneWest Bank, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01463-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us plaintiff's motion to reconsider (doc. 33). In our October 20, 2011

order (doc. 30), we dismissed all of plaintiff's claims except those against defendant Fairway

Independent Mortgage Company. Under LRCiv 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."

Plaintiff claims that we incorrectly interpreted Verde Water & Power Co. v. Salt River

Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 22 Ariz. 305, 197 P. 227 (1921). However, plaintiff fails to cite

any legal authority suggesting that this precedent has been overturned. See also Eason v.

IndyMac Bank, FSB, No. CV 09-1423-PHX-JAT, 2010 WL 4573270, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov.

5, 2010) (rejecting a similar argument). Similarly, plaintiff provides no authority that Farrell

v. West, 57 Ariz. 490, 114 P.2d 910 (1941) has been overruled, and therefore gives us no

reason to reconsider our decision. 

Plaintiff asserted a claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing, expressly arising

Case 2:11-cv-01463-FJM Document 34 Filed 11/15/11 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 -

out of contractual obligations in the deed of trust and the note. We dismissed this claim

because defendant OneWest Bank, FSB ("OneWest") was not a party to either contract.

Plaintiff's contention that bad faith is a tort, and that OneWest was part of a joint venture,

fails, among other things, to respond to the fundamental reality that the covenant of good

faith and fair dealing is inherent in a contract, absent which there is no such covenant.

A.R.S. § 33-420 provides a cause of action against "[a] person purporting to claim an

interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property," who falsely records a document

asserting such a claim. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration contends that the assignment

of the deed of trust asserts an interest in real property, and relies on briefs recently filed in

another case. This does not meet the standard to grant a motion for reconsideration.

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965) mentions physical harm only. The

Arizona Supreme Court recognizes that there is no "general duty to exercise reasonable care

for the purely economic well-being of others, as distinguished from their physical safety or

the physical safety of their property." Lips v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp., 224 Ariz. 266,

268, 229 P.3d 1008, 1010 (2010). Since the Arizona Supreme Court has not extended the

Good Samaritan doctrine to purely economic harm, no binding authority exists to suggest

otherwise.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

(Doc. 33).

DATED this 15th day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01463-FJM Document 34 Filed 11/15/11 Page 2 of 2