Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00501-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennly R. Becker
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNLY R. BECKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-12-0501 KJM-CKD

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., INC., ORDER

Defendant. 

 /

On August 23, 2012, the magistrate judge filed an order determining that

plaintiff’s claims to quiet title are not cognizable in the absence of tender and directing him to

deposit two cashier’s checks with the Clerk of the Court representing tender of the full amounts

of his unpaid debts as a condition to maintaining his quiet title actions. ECF No. 50. On

September 5, 2012, plaintiff sought reconsideration of this order, arguing that requiring tender is

inequitable. He also disputes the validity of various documents defendants submitted at the

hearing on the motion to dismiss.1

1

 Defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s request for reconsideration but in light of

plaintiff’s claim that this was not timely served on him, the court will not consider it. ECF Nos.

53-55. 

1

Case 2:12-cv-00501-KJM-CKD Document 57 Filed 11/02/12 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs district judges to consider timely

objections to nondispositive pretrial orders issued by magistrate judges and to “modify or set

aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also Local Rule

303(f) & 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “‘A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is

evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Concrete Pipe and Prods. v. Constr.

Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting United States v. United States

Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “[R]eview under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard is

significantly deferential . . . .” Id. at 623. “To succeed [on a motion for reconsideration], a party

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

decision.” Enriquez v. City of Fresno, No. CV F 10–0581 AWI DLB, 2011 WL 1087149, at

*1, 3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2011). Furthermore, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party

must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” E.D.

Cal. Local Rule 230(j)(3). “A motion for reconsideration ‘may not be used to raise arguments or

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the

litigation.’” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th

Cir. 2009) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000))

(emphasis in original).

Plaintiff contends the magistrate judge’s order is contrary to law because Wells

Fargo has prevented him from offering full or partial tender by failing to respond to his inquiries

about the ownership of his loan and the amount owing. He raised these arguments in opposition

to the motion to dismiss and has presented nothing which was not, or could not have been,

presented below. ECF No. 47-1 at 44-45. Moreover, none of these arguments shows that the

magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Manantan v. National City Mortgage,

No. C–11–00216 CW, 2011 WL 3267706, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2011).

2

Case 2:12-cv-00501-KJM-CKD Document 57 Filed 11/02/12 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

Plaintiff’s objection to the pay-off statements is not entirely clear; it appears that

he is objecting to the magistrate judge’s reliance on them as a basis for the tender amounts. 

However, nothing in the record shows he could not have objected to these documents when they

were proffered at the hearing; his request for reconsideration based on an objection he could

have raised below is unavailing.

IT THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No.

52) is denied. 

DATED: November 1, 2012.

3

Case 2:12-cv-00501-KJM-CKD Document 57 Filed 11/02/12 Page 3 of 3