Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02560/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02560-1/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 

Gabriel Salcido, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-02560-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On March 18, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice, 

finding that the statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs’ claims and that any further 

amendment of the complaint would be futile. Doc. 35. On April 17, 2015, Plaintiffs 

filed a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 36. They argue that their claim for negligent 

performance of an undertaking is not time-barred because their complaint alleged 

negligent conduct that occurred in 2013. The Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion. 

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

circumstances. Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 936, 938 (D. Ariz. 2003). 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). Reconsideration should not be used to make new 

arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers 

Case 2:14-cv-02560-DGC Document 37 Filed 05/15/15 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 

Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D. Ariz. 2003) (citing N.W. Acceptance Corp. 

v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

 The Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs filed 

this motion more than two weeks past the deadline for motions for reconsideration, and 

Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for their tardiness. LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) (“Absent good 

cause shown, any motion for reconsideration shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) 

days after the date” of the relevant order). 

 Second, in their original briefing for the motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs did not 

argue that Defendants’ conduct in 2013 brought their claims within the statute of 

limitations. Rather, Plaintiffs argued that their pursuit of administrative remedies 

equitably tolled the statute of limitations. See Doc. 20 at 7-9; Doc. 28 at 6-7. Motions 

for reconsideration “are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in 

their original briefs.” Motorola, Inc., 215 F.R.D. at 582. 

 Third, Plaintiffs’ new argument lacks merit. Plaintiffs argue that the complaint 

alleges negligent conduct occurring in 2013, thereby bringing their claim for negligent 

performance of an undertaking within the two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs point 

to two allegations: “On September 18, 2013, Plaintiffs again sought another post-sale 

modification through Seterus based upon Chase’s mishandling of Plaintiffs’ initial 

HAMP application as described above” (Doc. 1-1, ¶ 44), and “Plaintiffs promptly 

submitted their complaint to the [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] on 

December 11, 2013” (id., ¶ 46). 

 These allegations, however, did not form the basis for Plaintiffs’ claim for 

negligent performance of an undertaking, a claim that was based entirely on negligent 

conduct occurring from 2009 through 2011. Id., ¶¶ 54-76. In the present motion, 

Plaintiffs do not explain how Defendants’ conduct in 2013 could form the basis of a tort 

claim. The quoted allegations discuss Plaintiffs’ efforts to remedy Defendants’ tortious 

acts; they do not describe tortious conduct by Defendants. Plaintiffs argue that they 

“could easily amend their Complaint” to allege tortious conduct occurring within the 

Case 2:14-cv-02560-DGC Document 37 Filed 05/15/15 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 

statute of limitations. Notably, Plaintiffs do not explain what these amended allegations 

would be. For these reasons, Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Court’s decision was 

erroneous. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 36) is denied. 

 Dated this 15th day of May, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02560-DGC Document 37 Filed 05/15/15 Page 3 of 3