Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04276/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04276-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOUSIF HASSAN HALLOUM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04276-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Docket No. 49

Plaintiffs have filed a “Motion for Rehearing” under “[Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 

Procedure] 8022” of the Court’s November 16, 2018 Order (“Order”) staying this action pursuant 

to the first-to-file rule. See Docket No. 49 (Motion); Docket No. 48 (Order). However, Federal 

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8022 is inapposite here. The Rule only applies “in a United States 

district court . . . on appeal from a judgment, order, or decree of a bankruptcy court,” Fed. R. 

Bankr. P. 8001(a), and only “after entry of judgment on appeal,” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022(a)(1). 

This case is a separately filed action in federal district court, not an appeal from bankruptcy court, 

and no judgment has been entered. Thus, the Court will construe Plaintiffs’ motion as a request to 

file a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9. See In re Lau, 684 F. App’x 235, 239 (3d 

Cir. 2017) (A “motion for rehearing under Bankruptcy Rule 8022 . . . functions, essentially, like a 

traditional motion for reconsideration.”); Reynolds v. Maryland Dep’t of Labor, Licensing & 

Regulation, No. CV ELH-17-3158, 2018 WL 5045192, at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 16, 2018) (“Under Rule 

8022, ‘rehearing’ is a term of art that is analogous to ‘reconsideration.’”).

Under Local Rule 7-9, reconsideration may be granted where the moving party shows “a 

material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of 

Case 3:18-cv-04276-EMC Document 50 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought”; “[t]he emergence of new material 

facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order”; or “[a] manifest failure by the 

Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 

before such interlocutory order.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). A motion for leave may not “repeat 

any oral or written argument made by the applying party of or in opposition to the interlocutory 

order.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c).1 

Plaintiffs have not established that reconsideration of the Order is warranted. The instant 

motion repeats two arguments Plaintiffs have already made, and the Court has already considered, 

in the briefing and hearing preceding the Order. Compare Docket No. 49 at 2 (arguing that 

Plaintiffs’ first-filed case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada is “not 

ongoing”), 3 (arguing that Bankruptcy Court “lacks jurisdiction to make final rulings on . . . noncore proceedings”), with Docket No. 30 at 21 (Plaintiffs’ previous briefing arguing Bankruptcy 

Court “entered a final ruling” in their bankruptcy proceeding), 11 (arguing that Bankruptcy Court 

“lacks jurisdiction to make final rulings on non-core proceedings”).

Plaintiffs’ remaining argument is that Defendants are invoking the first-to-file rule as “an 

excuse to . . . change venue of the case from this District Court to the Bankruptcy Court” in 

Nevada. See Docket No. 49 at 5. This argument does not meet the requirements of Local Rule 7-

9 because it is not predicated on any material differences or changes in fact or law. It also fails on 

the merits because it was Plaintiffs, not Defendants, who initiated the bankruptcy proceeding in 

Nevada raising identical claims to those alleged here. Plaintiffs reference the factors governing 

the transfer of a case from one district to another pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b). See Docket No. 

49 at 7. However, if Plaintiffs seek to transfer their Nevada bankruptcy proceeding, they must 

make an appropriate motion to the Nevada Bankruptcy Court, not this Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

 

1 Similarly, Rule 8022 requires the motion for rehearing to “state with particularity each point of 

law or fact that the movant believes the district court or BAP has overlooked or misapprehended.” 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022(a)(2). “This standard is strict” and does not “allow the movant to reargue 

his case.” In re Soundview Elite Ltd., No. 14-CV-7666 JPO, 2015 WL 1642986, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 

Apr. 13, 2015), aff’d, 646 F. App’x 1 (2d Cir. 2016).

Case 3:18-cv-04276-EMC Document 50 Filed 12/10/18 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

This Order disposes of Docket No. 49.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04276-EMC Document 50 Filed 12/10/18 Page 3 of 3