Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00648/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00648-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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 

Elie K. Mamboleo, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00648-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Elie Mamboleo has filed a motion to vacate (Doc. 31) the Court’s 

May 21, 2014 order (Doc. 28) denying his motion to remand (Doc. 17). Plaintiff’s 

motion also requests to stay Plaintiff’s response to pending motions to dismiss (Docs. 11, 

12). The Court construes this as a motion for reconsideration and will deny the motion.1

 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare 

circumstances. See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 

3348522, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct.15, 2009). A motion for reconsideration will be denied 

“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.” 

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere 

disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:14-cv-00648-DJH Document 32 Filed 06/03/14 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 

Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 

2008). Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court to 

rethink its analysis. Id.; see N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 

918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for 

reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences 

in fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the 

party could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the 

exercise of reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the 

Court’s initial decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s 

initial decision, or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed 

to consider material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial 

decision. See, e.g., Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 

581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

 Plaintiff has failed to show that any of these circumstances exist here. Rather, he 

asserts that the Court misread his “well-pleaded, crystal clear claims” in its May 21, 2014 

order and requests that the Court rethink its analysis. Doc. 31 at 7. The question before 

the Court in the May 21 order was whether removal of this case from Maricopa County 

Superior Court was proper. The Court concluded that the removal was proper because 

Plaintiff’s complaint contained federal claims, notice of removal was timely filed, and 

both defendants properly joined in the removal. See Doc. 28. Plaintiff continues to 

contend that his complaint does not assert claims under federal law and again requests 

that the case be remanded. The Court will not remand this case to state court simply 

because Plaintiff states that “no claim is brought under the federal law.” Doc. 31 at 2. If 

Plaintiff does not intend to pursue federal claims, he would be required to amend his 

complaint accordingly. 

 Although Plaintiff may not wish to pursue any federal claims, federal claims do 

appear on the face of his complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint states that Defendant Wells 

Case 2:14-cv-00648-DJH Document 32 Filed 06/03/14 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 

Fargo Bank, NA “engaged in unlawful, intended deceptive and abusive acts” and that he 

was subjected to “unfair debt collections and false statements[.]” Doc. 1-1 at 29. 

Plaintiff cites “the Fair Debt Collection Practices and Reporting Acts” in support of this 

claim. Id. Plaintiff makes similar allegations against Defendant Chex Systems, stating 

that it pursued “malicious debt collection practices involving . . . [a] false amount owed,” 

and again cites the FDCPA and FCRA as support for this claim. Id. at 30. Plaintiff again 

cites the FCRA in support of his allegation that Chex Systems failed “to provide to the 

plaintiff all reported information.” Id. at 31. Finally, the very first sentence of Plaintiff’s 

complaint states that he is bringing his complaint pursuant to “the Discovery Rule under 

the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681p[.]” Id. at 26. Because federal claims appear on the face of 

the complaint, removal was proper and the Court has jurisdiction for the reasons set forth 

in the Court’s May 21, 2014 order. See Doc. 28. 

 The Court explained the May 21, 2014 order to Plaintiff during the case 

management conference held on the same day. Doc. 29. Plaintiff indicated that he 

understood the order and that he was able to file a response to the motions to dismiss 

filed by Wells Fargo (Doc. 11) and Chex Systems (Doc. 12) within 14 days. Plaintiff’s 

motion does not provide a basis for extending this deadline. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to vacate and motion to stay (Doc. 31) is 

denied. Plaintiff must file a response to pending motions to dismiss (Docs. 11, 12) by 

June 4, 2014. 

 Dated this 3rd day of June, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00648-DJH Document 32 Filed 06/03/14 Page 3 of 3