Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08036/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08036-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

Defendants requested oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider and

Plaintiffs may have requested oral argument in their Reply, although it is unclear because the

Reply both requests oral argument in the caption and states that no oral argument is

requested. Regardless, the Court will not set oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion because

both parties have submitted legal memoranda and oral argument would not aid the Court’s

decisional process. See e.g., Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fausto U. Cettolin, Jr.; Donna L. Cettolin,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

GMAC; Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc.; Executive Trustee Services,

LLC; et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8036-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed what is essentially a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 34) of the

Court’s Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and denying leave to amend (Doc.

31) and the judgment entered on that Order. Plaintiffs move pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b) and suggest that the Court erred in rejecting their “show me the note”

theory. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to “reopen [their] case for a declaratory judgment on the

Constitutionality of ARS 33-811(C) under the federal Fourteenth Amendment.” (Doc. 34,

p.2.) Defendants oppose the motion for reconsideration.1

Rule 60(b) provides that the Court may relieve a party from a final order for: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

Case 3:10-cv-08036-JAT Document 41 Filed 12/13/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct

by an opposing party; 

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied . . .; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief. 

F.R.Civ.P.60(b). The Court ordinarily will deny a motion for reconsideration absent a

showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g).

No motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant

in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order for which the party

seeks reconsideration. Id. Repeating arguments in a motion to reconsider may be grounds

for denying the motion. Id.

The Court find that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a right to relief under any of Rule

60(b)’s subsections. Nor have Plaintiffs shown that the Court committed manifest error in

dismissing their case. The Court therefore will deny the Rule 60(b) motion for

reconsideration. The Court cannot “reopen” this case under a different theory and brand new

cause of action as requested by Plaintiffs. The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs’ request for

declaratory relief. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to File

Reply (Doc. 39) to the extent that the Reply filed on December 6, 2010 will be deemed

timely. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs’ Motions for Relief and for Declaratory

Judgment (Doc. 34.)

DATED this 13th day of December, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08036-JAT Document 41 Filed 12/13/10 Page 2 of 2