Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00156/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00156-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

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

Demir Zoroglu and Tuzin G. Zoroglu,

husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, NA; First American

Title Insurance Company, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-156-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 9). For

the reasons set forth below, Defendants are asked to file a response.

BACKGROUND

The facts in this matter are set forth in the Court’s previous order denying a

Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). (Doc. 7). Plaintiffs ask for reconsideration of that

order based upon their claim that Wells Fargo appointed First American Loanstar Trustee

Services, LLC, as a successor trustee in January of 2010, and that First American Title

Company had no power to notice a trustee sale in November of 2011, since it was no longer

the trustee. (Doc. 9).

DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard

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

Case 2:12-cv-00156-GMS Document 10 Filed 01/26/12 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 -

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

Although Plaintiffs’ argument regarding the substitution of trustee is presented in the

complaint, it is discussed only in a cursory fashion in their TRO motion, which includes the

sentence “Wells Fargo and FATCO have not satisfied the statutorily required conditions

precedent to a lawful trustee sale.” (Doc. 1-1, Ex. 5 at 5). Such a statement does nothing to

reference the argument, let alone establish any likelihood of raising serious issues as to the

merits of Plaintiff’s claim. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court asks

Defendants to respond to the motion. Defendants’ response will be directed solely to the

issue of whether First American Title Company had the power to notice a trustee’s sale of

the property.

Defendants shall have three business days to respond. Previously, Defendant Wells

Fargo requested that their deadline to respond be extended to February 6, 2012, the scheduled

date of the trustee’s sale. Defendant Wells Fargo, in making that motion, wrote that it “agrees

to voluntarily continue the Trustee’s Sale for a period of no less than thirty (30) days.” (Doc.

6). Should Wells Fargo agree to continue the trustee’s sale voluntarily for thirty days,

Defendants may have until February 6, 2012 to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Reconsideration.

Case 2:12-cv-00156-GMS Document 10 Filed 01/26/12 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 THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs’

Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 9) on or before Tuesday, January 31, 2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Defendant Wells Fargo agree to continue

the trustee’s sale voluntarily and file notice of such, Defendants shall have, to and including,

February 6, 2012 to file a response.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00156-GMS Document 10 Filed 01/26/12 Page 3 of 3