Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02373/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02373-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

DANA DICKEY and RICHARD

SCHIELD,

2:05-cv-2373-MCE-GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DOUGLAS AUER, an Individual,

LINDA CARR, Individually and

as Trustee of the 1995 Linda

Carr Revocable Trust, RIO DE

LAS PLUMAS DEVELOPMENT GROUP,

INC., a California

Corporation, RIO DE LAS

PLUMAS, LLC, a California

Limited Liability Company,

RIDGE OF PORTOLA HEIGHTS, LLC,

a California Limited Liability

Company, SIERRA RIDGE, LLC, a

California Limited Liability

Company, and DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

______________________________

DOUGLAS AUER, Individually and

as Trustee of the 1995 Linda

Carr Revocable Trust, LINDA

CARR, Individually and as

Trustee of the 1995 Linda Carr

Revocable Trust, 

Case 2:05-cv-02373-MCE -GGH Document 62 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Counter Claimants, 

v.

DANA DICKEY, an Individual,

and RICHARD SCHIELD, an

Individual,

Counter Defendants.

______________________________

DOUGLAS AUER, an Individual,

and LINDA CARR, Individually

and as Trustee of the 1995

Linda Carr Revocable Trust,

Third Party 

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROBERT E. DICKEY, JR., 

Individually and as Co-Trustee

of the D&B Family Trust Dated

1/9/91,

Third Party 

Defendant. 

----oo0oo----

On June 6, 2006, Defendants, Cross Claimants and Third Party

Plaintiffs Douglas Auer and Linda Carr (“Defendants”) submitted a

Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated May 18,

2006. That Order denied Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary 1

Injunction and Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens.

Case 2:05-cv-02373-MCE -GGH Document 62 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(k), an application for

reconsideration must set forth, by affidavit or brief, any new

material facts and circumstances that support a claim that the

Court’s previous ruling be revisited. Here Defendants failed to

offer any such new evidence bearing on the Court’s prior ruling;

rather, Defendants simply want the Court to revisit its previous

Order based almost solely on the foreclosure sale of the subject

property noticed for June 21, 2006. The instant request is

consequently deficient on that ground alone. In addition,

however, Defendants’ request offers nothing substantively in any

event to change the analysis set forth in this Court’s Order of

May 18, 2006.

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for

Reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02373-MCE -GGH Document 62 Filed 06/20/06 Page 3 of 3