Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02305/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02305-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

Araceli Gonzalez; Mario E. Gonzalez, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP;

ReconTrust Company, N.A., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-02305-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Dismissal and for a New

Trial (Doc. 21). The Court now rules on the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 25, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging two

causes of action, which they entitled “For Injunctive Relief Against Mistake and Erroneous

Foreclose [sic]” and “Quiet Title Against all Defendants” (Doc. 1-2 at 2). On November 5,

2012, Defendants moved to Dismiss both counts of the Complaint. The motion was granted

on March 15, 2013. Plaintiffs now move for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b).

The basis for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration appears to be that the Court

Case 2:12-cv-02305-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 4
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

 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is prolix and confusing, and largely reasserts

the allegations contained in their Complaint. The Court has nonetheless attempted to set forth

the apparent basis of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.

- 2 -

misunderstood their Complaint.1

 Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that their Complaint alleged

that HSI Asset Securitization Corporation Trust 2006-HEI is not a legal entity, that Robert

White lacked authority to act on behalf of MERS, and that David M. Gregory lacked

authority to act on behalf of MERS or Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. Plaintiffs

argue that the Court erred in granting judgment in favor of Defendants because the Court did

not address and/or misunderstood these arguments.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiffs cite Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (4), and (6) in moving for

reconsideration. Rule 60(b) states, in relevant part, “On motion and just terms, the court may

relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (4) the judgment is void; . . . (6)

any other reason that justifies relief.”

III. ANALYSIS

Despite Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary, in ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, the

Court addressed the issues that Plaintiffs now argue the Court did not address or

misunderstood. As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration appears to be an attempt to

clarify the allegations made in their original Complaint. Nothing in this “clarification”

entitles Plaintiffs to reconsideration of the Court’s Order. 

Plaintiffs first argue that the Court did not address and/or understand their argument

regarding HSI Asset Securitization Corporation Trust 2006-HEI. On page 5 of the Order,

however, this Court considered Plaintiffs’ allegations that HSI Asset Securitization

Corporation Trust 2006-HEI was not incorporated in New York and therefore was not a legal

entity capable of holding a deed of trust. This Court found that those allegations “lack[ed]

plausibility and adequately-pled facts sufficient to survive Twombly.” (Doc. 18 at 5). Nothing

in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration changes that conclusion.

Case 2:12-cv-02305-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/24/13 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Plaintiffs next argue that the Court did not address and/or understand their arguments

regarding Robert White and David M. Gregory. With regard to Robert White and David M.

Gregory, the Court specifically stated:

Plaintiffs next allege that the assignment from MERS to

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was defective because

Robert White, who signed the Assignment as Corporate

Secretary of MERS may not have had the authority to sign on

behalf of MERS because “Plaintiff has no knowledge that

Robert White” had such authority. (Doc. 1-2 at 10). Accepting

as true Plaintiffs’ allegation that they lack knowledge as to

whether or not Robert White is a proper agent of MERS, such

allegation does not plausibly support Plaintiffs’ legal conclusion

that the assignment from MERS to Deutsche Bank National

Trust Company was invalid. There are no well-pled facts in the

Complaint indicating that Robert White was not an agent of

MERS without authority to execute the assignment.

Plaintiffs make similar allegations regarding the June

2011 Corporate Assignment from Deutsche Bank National Trust

Company to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. Specifically,

Plaintiffs allege that they cannot ascertain whether David M.

Gregory, who signed the assignment on behalf of Deutsche

Bank, was an employee of Deutsche Bank. (Doc. 1-2 at 11).

Again, these allegations appear to be based on mere speculation

and are not supported by well-pled facts.

(Doc. 18 at 6). Despite Plaintiffs’ contentions to the contrary, the Court understood Plaintiffs’

allegations that Robert White and David M. Gregory did not have the proper authority to act

as they did, but found that those allegations lacked a sufficient factual basis for Plaintiffs’ to

plausibly state a claim upon which relief could be granted. To the extent that Plaintiffs now

seek to add additional allegations, a Motion for Reconsideration is an inappropriate arena for

raising such additional allegations. Further, even if the Court did consider Plaintiffs’

additional allegations regarding the authority of Robert White and David M. Gregory,

Plaintiffs have again pled insufficient facts to plausibly state a claim upon which relief could

be granted.

Plaintiffs appear to be moving under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) on the

basis that the Court was mistaken in its understanding of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and issued an

erroneous judgment as a result of that mistake. “Rule 60(b) cannot be used as a substitute for

an appeal.” McCarthy v. Mayo, 827 F.2d 1310, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Benny v. Pipes,

Case 2:12-cv-02305-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/24/13 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

799 F.2d 489, 494 (9th Cir. 1986)). Plaintiffs’ argument that this Court made an erroneous

judgment is properly made in an appeal, not in a Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs

are not entitled to relief under 60(b)(1).

Rule 60(b)(4) provides relief from void judgments “only in the rare instance where

a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due

process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” United Student Aid

Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010). Plaintiffs have not asserted that this Court

lacked jurisdiction or that Plaintiffs were in any way deprived of notice or the opportunity

to be heard, and, thus, Rule 60(b)(4) is inapplicable here.

To prevail under Rule 60(b)(6), the moving party must demonstrate “‘extraordinary

circumstances’ justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.

524, 535 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v. U.S., 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)). Plaintiffs have not

asserted “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify reconsideration. Therefore, they

are not entitled to relief under 60(b)(6).

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Dismissal and for a New Trial (Doc.

21) is denied.

DATED this 24th day of June, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02305-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/24/13 Page 4 of 4