Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00901/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00901-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
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

 The facts and background pertaining to this action are set out in much greater detail

in the Court’s April 2 Order. (Doc. 90).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steve G. Thomas, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

dba Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-901-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On April 2, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part

Defendant Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment.1

 (Doc. 90). On April 16, 2012

Defendant moved for reconsideration of the April 2 Order. (Doc. 92). On May 8, 2012, the

Court directed Plaintiff Steve Thomas to respond to Well Fargo’s motion. (Doc. 93). For the

reasons discussed below, the motion for reconsideration is denied. 

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A

motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had

Case 2:10-cv-00901-GMS Document 101 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing,

Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983).

 Wells Fargo contends that Plaintiff has not adequately established the damages

element of his claims. (Doc. 92 at 6–9). Plaintiff has, indeed, failed to establish a genuine

issue of material fact for most of his damages theories. (See Doc. 93). He has not, for

instance, submitted evidence to support his claim that absent Wells Fargo’s misapplication

of the escrowed funds he would have been entitled to a tax deduction, or that he was

damaged by having to pay interest on the escrowed funds or the Second Loan. Nor has he

established a genuine issue that he is entitled to unjust enrichment or improper deficiency

damages. He may not, therefore, advance these damages theories at trial. Plaintiff has,

however, established a genuine issue of fact as to his “loss of personal liquidity” damages

theory. (Doc. 54 at 5). 

To succeed on this loss of personal liquidity theory at trial, Plaintiff must establish,

among other things, a causal link between Wells Fargo’s breach of the Escrow Agreement

and Plaintiff’s alleged loss of liquidity. Plaintiff must therefore identify admissible evidence

that he completed a portion of the agreed-upon improvements. In his opposition to

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff identified Exhibit “M” as the evidence

of his completion of these improvements. (See Doc. 85 at 4). As noted by Wells Fargo in its

motion for reconsideration, Exhibit M is a summary of evidence and does not, itself,

constitute admissible evidence. (See Doc. 85 at 13). In directing Plaintiff to respond to

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, the Court therefore instructed him to identify

admissible evidence in the record which demonstrated his completion of the improvements.

(Doc. 93).

On June 8, 2012, Plaintiff responded to Wells Fargo’s motion for reconsideration.

(Doc. 98). As part of his response, he attaches multiple invoices which he contends document

many of the expenses he incurred in completing the improvements. (Doc. 98, Ex. 1). Many

of these invoices were part of the record prior to the time when Wells Fargo moved for

summary judgment. (See Doc. 58, Ex. A). A reasonable fact finder could determine, given

Case 2:10-cv-00901-GMS Document 101 Filed 07/26/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

these invoices and Plaintiff’s likely testimony in relation thereto, that Plaintiff completed at

least a portion of the agreed upon improvements. Plaintiff has therefore established a genuine

issue of fact for trial.

Wells Fargo contends that these invoices are inadmissible. It contends that some of

the invoices were not produced by Plaintiff during the course of discovery despite Wells

Fargo’s requests for such documents. (Doc. 100). It further contends that other invoices are

either irrelevant or lack foundation and are unauthenticated. (Id.).

To be sure, to the extent the Court determines that an invoice was not produced by

Plaintiff upon a Wells Fargo discovery request, the Court is not likely to admit such evidence

at trial. Wells Fargo does not object on lack of production grounds, however, to many of the

invoices, arguing only that these invoices are irrelevant, lack foundation, and/or are

unauthenticated. (See Doc. 100). Having reviewed the invoices, the Court finds that many

of them are relevant to the question of whether Plaintiff completed the improvements. (See

Doc. 98, Ex. 1). In regards to Wells Fargo’s authentication and foundation challenges,

Federal Rule of Evidence 901 states that “[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or

identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support

a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” The Rule further states that a

document can be authenticated based on the “appearance, contents, substance, internal

patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item.” FED. R. EVID. 901(4). The

distinctive characteristics of many of Plaintiff’s proffered invoices, such as the official

letterhead on which they are printed and the logos which they contain, are sufficient to

support a finding that these invoices are what Plaintiff claims they are. (See Doc. 98, Ex. 1).

The remaining arguments in Wells Fargo’s motion are essentially requests that the

Court “rethink what [it] has already thought through.” Above the Belt, Inc. 99 F.R.D. at 101.

Wells Fargo has not identified newly discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or

a change in controlling law with respect to these arguments. See id.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Wells Fargo’s Motion for Leave to Reply in

Case 2:10-cv-00901-GMS Document 101 Filed 07/26/12 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Support of its Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 99) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. 92) is DENIED. 

DATED this 26th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-00901-GMS Document 101 Filed 07/26/12 Page 4 of 4