Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05167/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05167-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- 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

E-Filed 8/5/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIM CURTIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05167-HRL 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 122

Plaintiffs move the court for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order which 

dismissed their negligence claim. Defendants oppose.

Discussion

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) a party “must” move diligently for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration and must also establish: (1) a “material difference in fact or law . . . from that 

which was presented to the Court”; (2) the “emergence of new material facts or a change of law”; 

or (3) a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments 

which were presented to the Court[.]”

Plaintiffs argue leave should be granted both because the operative California law was 

materially “clarified” by the issuance of Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 

4th 1150 (2016), and because this court manifestly failed to consider whether a duty of care is

created “once the loan servicer agrees to review the borrower for a loan modification.” Dkt. No. 

122 at 4 (italicization omitted). Defendants argue: (1) Daniels is merely one more case in a preexisting split between California’s courts of appeal, rather than a change in the law; and (2) the 

court’s prior order considered each pertinent argument Plaintiffs had raised. Dkt. No. 125 at 4-8.

The undersigned agrees with Defendants. The court’s prior order recognized that “the 

majority” of federal and state courts in California to consider the issue have concluded lenders “do 

Case 5:14-cv-05167-HRL Document 126 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

not owe a duty of care to borrowers” with respect to offering, considering, or approving a loan 

modification, Dkt. No. 76 at 9 (citing Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 221 Cal. App. 

4th 49, 64 (2013)), and the court’s prior order dismissed Plaintiffs’ negligence claim based on that 

rule, see id. The court’s prior order therefore considered and rejected the argument that 

Defendants had a duty to take reasonable care during the process of deciding whether to ultimately 

grant Plaintiffs a loan modification. Id. And although Daniels is inconsistent with this court’s 

prior order, Defendants are correct that Daniels is merely one additional case in a pre-existing split 

between California’s courts of appeal; the Ninth Circuit recognized in 2013 that California’s 

courts of appeal disagree on whether a duty of care exists in the context of “offers of loan 

modifications handled negligently.” Yau v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. Am., 525 Fed. Appx. 

606, 609. 

Plaintiffs have therefore failed to provide sufficient support for their motion for leave to 

move for reconsideration, and the court need not decide whether Plaintiffs filed the motion with 

sufficient diligence.

Conclusion

The operative law has not changed, and the court’s prior order already considered and 

rejected the argument that Defendants had a duty to take reasonable care during the process of 

deciding whether to grant Plaintiffs a loan modification. The motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration is therefore denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/5/16

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05167-HRL Document 126 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 2