Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02467/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02467-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Petition to Quiet Title

---

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 

Jeanette Andasola, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Capital One Bank NA; and Quality Loan 

Service Corporation, 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-02467-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 31); 

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 32); and (3) Defendant’s Motion for 

Judicial Notice that No Response is Required for a Motion for Reconsideration or In the 

Alternative Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 33). The Court now rules on the 

Motions. 

 On March 19, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. (Doc. 27). Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of that Order. Plaintiff 

does not specify the authority that entitles her to reconsideration. The local rules provide 

for motions for reconsideration for interlocutory orders. The Court is aware of no rule 

allowing for reconsideration of a final judgment. Rather, a motion seeking relief from 

judgment or to alter or amend a judgment may be brought pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 60 or 59(e) respectively. 

 Rule 59(e) governs motions filed within 28 days of entry of judgment. Fed. R. 

Case 2:12-cv-02467-JAT Document 37 Filed 09/05/13 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 

Civ. P. 59(e). “A Rule 59(e) motion should not be granted ‘unless the district court is 

presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 

intervening change in the controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 

(9th Cir. 2003) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en 

banc)). 

 Both of Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration were filed on May 17, 2013, more 

than 28 days after judgment entered on March 19, 2013. Accordingly, to the extent 

Plaintiff intended to move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Plaintiff’s 

motions for reconsideration are denied as untimely. Alternatively, Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate that she is entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) and her motions for 

reconsideration are denied to the extent Plaintiff sought relief pursuant to Rule 59(e). 

 Because Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration were filed more than 28 days after 

the judgment, the Court will consider them under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides for 

reconsideration only upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct 

of the adverse party; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied, released or discharged 

judgment, or (6) “extraordinary circumstances” which would justify relief. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b); see Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal 

citation omitted). 

 In her Motions for Reconsideration, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she is 

entitled to relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration are denied. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 31) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 

32) is denied. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Judicial Notice that 

No Response is Required for a Motion for Reconsideration or In the Alternative 

Case 2:12-cv-02467-JAT Document 37 Filed 09/05/13 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 

Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 33) is denied as moot. 

 Dated this 5th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02467-JAT Document 37 Filed 09/05/13 Page 3 of 3