Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00974/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00974-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ROBERT ASH AND KATHLEEN ASH,

NO. CIV. S-09-974 FCD/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ONEWEST BANK, FSB as successor

by acquisation of Indymac

Federal Bank and LENDER DOE,

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as

Truastee/Master Servicer of

the Securitization Trust, MARM

2007-3,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Robert and Kathleen Ash (“plaintiffs”) move this

court for reconsideration of its order filed June 3, 2010

(“Order”), dismissing plaintiffs’ second amended complaint

without leave to amend on the ground plaintiffs failed to

disclose their Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim against

defendants as a potential asset in their bankruptcy proceedings,

and therefore were judicially estopped from bringing said claim

in this court. (Docket # 32.) Plaintiffs now contend, for the

first time, that they did, in fact, list their TILA claim as an

asset in their bankruptcy schedules and related documents, and

Case 2:09-cv-00974-FCD-DAD Document 39 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 5
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

request that the court reconsider the issue and render a decision

on the merits of their claims.

Where a court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or

order, a motion for reconsideration may be based either on Rule

59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion

for relief from judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Because plaintiffs’

motion was filed more than ten days after entry of dismissal, the

court will consider the instant motion under Rule 60(b). See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (requiring that all motions submitted

pursuant to this rule be filed within ten days of entry of

judgment). Absent “highly unusual circumstances,”

reconsideration of a final judgment is appropriate only where (1)

the court is presented with newly-discovered evidence, (2) the

court committed “clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust,” or (3) there is an intervening change in the

controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, 5 F.3d

at 1263. In order for evidence to be considered “new” for the

purposes of Rule 60(b), it must be of such a character that it

would change the outcome of the court’s prior decision. See

Fernhoff v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 622 F. Supp. 121, 122

(D. Nev. 1985); See e.g., United States v. James, 915 F. Supp.

1092, 1102 (S.D. Cal 1995). Evidence is not considered “new”

when it was readily available prior to the court’s ruling, but

the moving party simply failed to raise it. Cf. Zimmerman v.

City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding, “a

party that fails to introduce facts in a motion or opposition

Case 2:09-cv-00974-FCD-DAD Document 39 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 5
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

cannot introduce them later in a motion to amend by claiming that

they constitute ‘newly discovered evidence’ unless they were

previously unavailable”). In the absence of new evidence or a

change in the law, a party may not use a motion for

reconsideration to present new arguments or claims not raised in

the previous motion. See 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold,

197 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

Here, the court based its Order on the issues as framed by

the parties’ motion papers. In their motions to dismiss,

defendants asserted that plaintiffs should be judicially estopped

from bringing a TILA claim due to their failure to list the claim

as an asset when required to do so by Schedule B, Item 21 of

their bankruptcy filings. Indeed, Item 21, which required

plaintiffs to list “other contingent and unliquidated claims of

every nature” was marked “none” by plaintiffs. In their

opposition to defendants’ motions, plaintiffs failed to (1)

proffer any explanation as to why Item 21 was marked “none;” (2)

cite any other document in their bankruptcy proceedings where

their TILA claim was listed as an asset; or (3) even acknowledge

that defendants had raised this argument in support of dismissal. 

Instead, plaintiffs offered no response whatsoever to defendants

motions on this issue. The court properly treated plaintiffs’

silence as a non-opposition to defendants’ argument.

Plaintiffs only now proffer from their bankruptcy filings

“Schedule D” and their “Statement of Financial Affairs,” which

list plaintiffs’ TILA claim against defendant OneWest as a

Case 2:09-cv-00974-FCD-DAD Document 39 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 5
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 Plaintiffs’ “Schedule D” and “Statement of Financial

Affairs” only mention a TILA claim against defendant OneWest. 

Accordingly, it is likely that plaintiffs’ TILA claim against

defendant Wells Fargo would have failed even if these documents

were raised in a timely manner. 

4

potential asset.1

 As noted above, however, plaintiffs failed to

raise these documents in response to the motions to dismiss. 

And, plaintiffs fail to offer any explanation as to why they did

not present these documents previously. This is especially

concerning considering the documents are plaintiffs’ own

bankruptcy filings, which have presumably been in plaintiffs’

possession since prior to the consummation of this action. 

Ultimately, plaintiffs had an obligation to respond to the

arguments presented in support of defendants’ motions to dismiss

and they failed to do so. Plaintiffs now request

reconsideration, ostensibly (and erroneously) believing that it

was this court’s responsibility to conduct plaintiffs’ document

review, gleaning any potential responses contained therein and,

sua sponte, present those arguments on plaintiffs’ behalf. The

court has no such responsibility and will not grant

reconsideration due to counsel’s carelessly failing to present

relevant arguments in a timely manner. See United Nat'l Ins. Co.

v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009)

(holding a district court does not abuse its discretion when it

disregards legal arguments made for the first time on a motion to

alter or amend a judgment); Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198

(9th Cir. 1994) (holding that a district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying a motion for reconsideration when the

moving party presented no reason why its new information could

Case 2:09-cv-00974-FCD-DAD Document 39 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

not have been obtained and presented prior to the court’s

ruling). 

The documents in question are not “newly discovered

evidence,” there has not been a subsequent change in relevant

law, and the court did not commit a “clear error” by interpreting

plaintiffs’ non-opposition to defendants’ argument as a

concession. Plaintiffs have failed to meet the high standard for

reconsideration. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of this court’s

Order dismissing plaintiffs’ second amended complaint is DENIED.

2. The court adheres to its prior decision dismissing

plaintiffs’ second amended complaint without leave to amend.

DATED: August 2, 2010

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00974-FCD-DAD Document 39 Filed 08/02/10 Page 5 of 5