Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01207/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01207-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANAL NAOOM dba L.T.M. AUTO

SALES; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 05-CV-1207 H

(CAB)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

(Doc. No. 164.)

vs.

SECURED ASSETS INCOME

FUNDS, an unknown entity; et al.,

Defendants.

SAIF, INC., a California corporation,

et al.,

Counter-Claimant,

 vs.

MANAL NAOOM dba L.T.M. AUTO

SALES; et al., 

Counter-Defendants.

Plaintiffs Javad Mousavinia (d/b/a Cars-R-Us), Manal Naoom (d/b/a LTM Auto

Sales), Parviz Ghadimi (d/b/a MP Motors), Afshin Kashani (d/b/a Auto Finance Group),

Mehran Khomamizadeha (d/b/a Car Mart), and Mohammed Kashan (d/b/a Team Auto)

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) originally filed their complaint in state court 

/ / / /

Case 3:05-cv-01207-H-CAB Document 168 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

on June 30, 2004. Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 7, 2005. (Doc.

No. 1.)

Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on September 7, 2006. (Doc. No.

86.) Defendants SAIF, Inc., Secured Assets of California, Thomas A. Sterling, and

Carole Sterling (collectively, “Defendants”) filed their opposition on September 18,

2006, (Doc. No. 100), and Plaintiffs submitted a reply on September 25, 2006. (Doc.

No. 126.) Plaintiffs submitted a second reply on October 6, 2006. (Doc. No. 144.)

On September 1, 2006, Defendants SAIF, Inc., Secured Assets of California,

Thomas A. Sterling, and Carole Sterling (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion for

summary judgment on several of Plaintiffs’ claims, and Defendant/Counterclaimant

SAIF, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment on several of its counterclaims. (Doc.

No. 87.) Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 18, 2006, (Doc. No. 105), and

Defendants filed a reply on September 25, 2006. (Doc. No. 124.)

The Court held a hearing on the motions for summary judgment on October 16,

2006. Richard Miller appeared for Plaintiffs, and Richard Van Dyke appeared for

Defendants/Counterclaimants. At the hearing, counsel for Defendant SAIF, Inc.

presented the Court with a declaration from Rita Mills McCoy and a certificate of

merger. The Court entered its order on the parties’ motions for summary judgment on

October 16, 2006. (Doc. No. 150.) The Court’s ruling did not rely upon the evidence

SAIF, Inc. presented at the hearing.

Presently before the Court, on October 31, 2006, Plaintiffs submitted a response

to Defendants’ additional evidence in support of summary judgment. (Doc. No. 164.)

In their response, Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its ruling regarding SAIF, Inc.’s

standing to enforce the disputed agreements. For the reasons that follow, the Court

DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.

Discussion

A motion for reconsideration “is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

Case 3:05-cv-01207-H-CAB Document 168 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

Amendment by the court upon motion for reconsideration should be used sparingly and

is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934

(9th Cir. 2003). Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the sound

discretion of the district courts. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.

2003) (citing Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)).

In their motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its ruling that SAIF, Inc. has

standing to enforce the agreements. In support of their position, Plaintiffs argue that:

(1) Defendants supported their motion with surprise evidence; (2) Rita Mills McCoy has

unclean hands; (3) Defendants’ new evidence contradicts the declaration of Defendant

Thomas Sterling; and (4) a state court in Nevada made contrary findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

With regard to Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants supported their motion with

surprise evidence, Plaintiffs object to the evidence because Plaintiffs have not received

discovery regarding Rita Mills McCoy. As indicated above, however, the Court did not

rely upon the evidence in its summary judgment order. Concerning Plaintiffs’ argument

that Rita Mills McCoy has unclean hands, they argue that her past misconduct deprives

the evidence of trustworthiness. Again, however, the Court did not rely upon this

evidence in its summary judgment order.

Next, Plaintiffs contend that the new evidence contradicts the declaration of

Defendant Thomas Sterling. In support, Plaintiffs cite to the California Code of Civil

Procedure and to California cases regarding the summary judgment standard in state

court. Further, rather than describing how the new evidence contradicts the declaration

of Thomas Sterling, Plaintiffs provide reasons why the Court should discredit Rita Mills

McCoy’s declaration. Because the Court did not rely upon the McCoy 

declaration, Plaintiffs have not shown exceptional circumstances justifying

reconsideration. See, e.g., Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934.

Case 3:05-cv-01207-H-CAB Document 168 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Finally, Plaintiffs again direct the Court to a Nevada state court case, Wexler v.

Polich, Case No. A452753. According to Plaintiffs, on October 23, 2006, the court in

Wexler entered a final judgment against SAIF, Inc. for conversion in which the court

made findings of fact and conclusions of law contrary to those in this Court’s summary

judgment order. Findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Nevada case, however,

do not amount to newly discovered evidence, do not demonstrate clear error or manifest

injustice, and do not amount to an intervening change in controlling law. Accordingly,

none of the reasons justifying reconsideration are present here. See, e.g., School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County, 5 F.3d at 1263.

Conclusion

Because Plaintiffs have not shown that any of the reasons justifying

reconsideration are present here, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for

reconsideration.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 31, 2006

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

Richard S. Van Dyke, Esq.

Van Dyke & Associates

Faraday Business Park

5741 Palmer Way, Suite B

Carlsbad, CA 92008

Richard P. Miller, Esq.

Law Offices of Richard P. Miller

2207 Garnet Avenue, Suite N

San Diego, CA 92109

Case 3:05-cv-01207-H-CAB Document 168 Filed 10/31/06 Page 4 of 4