Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01279/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01279-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 12:2601 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) (findings &amp; purpose)

---

1

3:17-cv-01279-BEN

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANAR WASITO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, 

LLC; GSAA 5-11; GOLDMAN SACHS 

MORTGAGE COMPANY; JPM CHASE 

BANK,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01279-BEN

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff has filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order 

denying a preliminary injunction to postpone a foreclosure sale on his home. The Court 

denied the preliminary injunction because Plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of 

success on the merits, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that the public 

interest favors enjoining the foreclosure. Plaintiff admitted he has not made his monthly 

mortgage payments since May 2015. He also failed to demonstrate a credible offer of 

tender.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(b) provides that a court may relieve a party 

from an order for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 

Reversing a prior order under Rule 60(b)(6) is an exercise of a court’s equitable power 

Case 3:17-cv-01279-BEN-RBB Document 44 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-01279-BEN

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

that “requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances.” Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 

1120, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Those circumstances may include an intervening change in 

law, newly discovered evidence, or that the district court committed clear error and its 

initial decision was manifestly unjust. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 

GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). A motion for reconsideration may not 

be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time that could have been 

raised earlier in the litigation. Id.

Here, Plaintiff does not present new evidence or suggest that there has been an 

intervening change of law. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the Court made legal errors 

regarding its interpretation of the tender rule and in refusing to issue a notice of lis 

pendens, a state procedural rule. He further contends that he is a disabled veteran and, 

once he completes “sustainment therapy,” his earnings will increase, which will help him 

qualify for a loan modification. Plaintiff desires to stay in his home and asserts that he 

will improve the home to increase its value.

Although the Court is sympathetic to the loss of Plaintiff’s home, his arguments 

are not convincing that a clear error has been made or that the decision is manifestly 

unjust. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the presence of extraordinary circumstances to 

warrant overturning the Court’s order denying a preliminary injunction. The Rule 

60(b)(6) standard has not been met.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01279-BEN-RBB Document 44 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2