Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02301/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02301-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karoly Quintana, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, Countrywide Home

Loans Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp.,

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2301-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s emergency motion to reopen the case and

motion for preliminary injunction. This case arises out of a Trustee’s attempt to sell

Plaintiff’s house at a Trustee Sale due to her failure to pay her mortgage. In this Order, the

Court will address the motion to reopen.

Plaintiff bases the motion to reopen on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). “Rule

60(b)(3) allows a court, on motion and just terms, to relieve a party [] from a final judgment

[] for the following reasons: fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” U.S. v. Chapman, 642 F.3d 1236,

1240 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Plaintiff claims that defense counsel

misrepresented the facts to Plaintiff and thereby committed fraud.

Specifically, Plaintiff claims that she filed this lawsuit on November 21, 2011. On

March 25, 2012, before Plaintiff accomplished service of process, Plaintiff approached

Case 2:11-cv-02301-JAT Document 17 Filed 03/27/13 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 -

Defendant about reopening Plaintiff’s loan modification. Doc. 13 at 2. On March 27, 2012,

Defendant asked Plaintiff if she would dismiss this lawsuit, without prejudice, if Defendant

Bank of America would reopen the loan modification process on the house. Id. Based on

this agreement, on April 6, 2012, Plaintiff dismissed this case without prejudice. Id. at 2-3.

Plaintiff claims that in June 2012, Plaintiff submitted her modification paperwork, via

her attorney, to counsel for Defendant Bank of America. Id. at 3. Plaintiff claims that she

was instructed to submit this paperwork to counsel for Bank of America, rather than to Bank

of America itself. Id. Plaintiff called Bank of America repeatedly over the next several

months and was advised that her modification paperwork had not yet been received by the

Bank. Id. 

On August 11, 2012, Plaintiff learned that Bank of America had transferred her note

to Deutsche Bank National Association. Id. at 3. Plaintiff further learned that Bank of

America made this transfer on April 4, 2012, two days before Plaintiff dismissed this lawsuit

in exchange for Defendant Bank of America reopening her loan modification process. Id. at

4. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that defense counsel induced her into the settlement by fraud which

justifies reopening this case under Rule 60(b).

The Court ordered Defendants, including Bank of America, to respond to the motion

to reopen and cautioned that a failure to respond would be deemed consent to the motion

being granted under Local Rule Civil 7.2(i). Doc. 15. Defendants responded with the

following argument (quoted in its entirety):

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b) is poorly taken.

Plaintiff first filed this action 16 months ago and she failed to serve any

defendant with a summons and complaint. Indeed, before Plaintiff voluntarily

dismissed this case last year, the Court on March 23, 2012 ordered Plaintiff to

show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failing to serve

Defendants within the time allowed by Federal Rule 4(m). [Doc. 7] The

deficiency in service remains to this day, and precludes simply reopening the

case. If Plaintiff wishes to continue this litigation, Plaintiff must at the very

least serve Defendants properly under the rules. 

Doc. 16 at 2.

Defendants have accurately pointed out that for this case to proceed Plaintiff must

accomplish service. However, Defendants have made no argument on the merits opposing

Case 2:11-cv-02301-JAT Document 17 Filed 03/27/13 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 -

relief under Rule 60(b). Thus, the Court will grant the motion as unopposed under Local

Rule Civil 7.2(i), but the Court will require service under Rule 4.

Alternatively, because Defendants did not respond on the merits, Plaintiff’s facts are

now undisputed for purposes of this motion. On this record, the Court finds that defense

counsel agreeing to a settlement to reopen a modification process on a loan that no longer

belonged to his client would be a fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing

party that justifies Rule 60(b) relief.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to reopen (Doc. 13) is granted; the Clerk of the

Court shall reopen this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall complete service within 20 days

of this Order.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-02301-JAT Document 17 Filed 03/27/13 Page 3 of 3