Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01147/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01147-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

Oscar Osuna, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1147-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendants BAC

Home Loans Servicing LP and ReconTrust Company, N.A. (Doc. 10). For the reasons

discussed below, the motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2011, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part

Defendants’ earlier motion to dismiss. (Doc. 9). The order dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims

except for his claim to Quiet Title, which was based on the assertion in his complaint that

“The basis of Plaintiff’s title is a Grant Deed granting the Property in fee simple to Plaintiff

dated March 19, 2007 and recorded in the official records of Pinal County, Arizona as

Instrument # 2007-040941 APN # 505-59-10500.” (Doc. 1, Ex. 1 at 18). Defendants now

claim that no such deed exists, and that the instrument number in question refers to the Deed

of Trust, of which the Court took judicial notice in its previous order. (Doc. 10).

Case 2:11-cv-01147-GMS Document 11 Filed 01/03/12 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 -

DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard

Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration may be granted only on one of four

grounds, “1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the

judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable

evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice or 4) there is an intervening

change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063

(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and emphasis omitted). Motions for reconsideration are

disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original

briefs and arguments. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d

918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor should such motions ask the Court to “rethink what the

court has already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32

F. Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

2. Analysis

Defendants properly note that Plaintiff has offered no evidence in support of his claim

that the property was conveyed to him in fee simple via a “Grant Deed” that has been

recorded with Pinal County. They have not, however, stated which of the Turner factors is

applicable to their argument that the initial order was wrongly reasoned, and instead appear

to argue that the court should “rethink what the court has already thought through.”

Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d at 1116. As such, they provide no adequate grounds for the Court

to reconsider its order under Rule 59(e). It may indeed appear unlikely that Plaintiff will be

able to produce the Grant Deed that he claims exists. Nevertheless, a complaint may survive

a motion to dismiss even “if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is

improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v

Twombly, 550 U.S. 444, 556 (2007) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:11-cv-01147-GMS Document 11 Filed 01/03/12 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 10) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01147-GMS Document 11 Filed 01/03/12 Page 3 of 3