Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01970/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01970-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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 - 10cv1970

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTHA I. MENDEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv1970 DMS (WMC)

vs. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Docket No. 15]

OAKMONT MORTGAGE COMPANY,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Defendants

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. filed an

opposition to the motion, and Plaintiffs filed a reply. For the reasons set out below, the Court denies

the motion. Plaintiffs cite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) as the legal basis for their motion,

but since the Court did not enter judgment, the Court construes the motion as one for relief from a court

order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides

that a court may relieve a party from a final order for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

misconduct by an opposing party; 

(4) the judgment is void; 

Case 3:10-cv-01970-DMS-WMC Document 19 Filed 04/27/11 Page 1 of 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

1

 The Court notes there is proof of service that Defendants delivered a copy of their most recent

motion and their reply brief to Plaintiffs at their current address, both of which listed the hearing date

and time for the motion. The record also reflects that all other pleadings and court orders were delivered

without incident to Plaintiffs at their current address.

- 2 - 10cv1970

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier

judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer

equitable; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Plaintiffs argue the Court should reconsider its dismissal of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

in light of “new or different circumstances” that Plaintiffs did not present to the Court because they did

not receive notice of the hearing on Defendants’ most recent motion to dismiss. (Mot. at 1.)1

 However,

Plaintiffs fail to cite any specific circumstances in support of their argument. Instead, they rely on vague

and general allegations about “banking farce,” (id. at 2), “robo signers, securities investment,

improprieties, broken chain of title, and other things[.]” (Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. at 7.) These

allegations are insufficient to warrant reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion

for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01970-DMS-WMC Document 19 Filed 04/27/11 Page 2 of 2