Bek v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) NANCY BEK, ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION ) NO. 18-11096-DHH WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et al. ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER

November 13, 2018

Hennessy, M.J. Before the Court are Plaintiff Nancy Bek’s motions to: (1) stay foreclosure (docket # 44), (2) extend time in order for Bek to retain counsel (docket #45), (3) reconsider the Court's order on her motion to reconsider (docket # 46), and (4) set an evidentiary hearing (docket # 47). These motions appear to have been filed in response to the setting of a foreclosure sale for November 20, 2018. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies all four of Bek's motions. In order for the Court to grant the relief from judgment that Bek seeks through her motions, the Court must find “at a bare minimum, that [her] motion is timely; that exceptional circumstances exist, favoring extraordinary relief; that if the judgment is set aside, [s]he has the right stuff to mount a potentially meritorious claim or defense; and that no unfair prejudice will accrue to the opposing parties should the motion be granted.” Fisher v. Kadant, Inc., 589 F.3d 505, 512 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Karak v. Bursaw Oil Corp., 288 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir.2002)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Court ordered dismissal of Bek's complaint and denial of the Bek's request for injunctive relief on September 7, 2018. (Docket # 31). The Court entered an order denying Bek's motion to reconsider and denying Bek's motion for stay of foreclosure on October 3, 2018. (Docket # 43). In her motion for an evidentiary hearing, Bek argues that the note she was shown was a falsification and that the Court erroneously found that the note was not germane. (Docket

# 47). This argument was made by Bek in her opposition to the motion to dismiss filed on August 1, 2018 (docket # 23), and in her motion for reconsideration dated September 10, 2018 (docket # 32). Bek has not offered any new facts or argument not available at the time that the motion to dismiss was granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The Court has already considered Bek’s arguments and has found them to be without legal merit. Bek has not met the legal criteria for relief from judgment. Id. There being no new facts or other circumstances to trigger reconsideration, a stay of foreclosure, an evidentiary hearing and a continuance to retain counsel are unwarranted.

CONCLUSION The motions to: (1) stay foreclosure (docket # 44), (2) extend time in order for Bek to retain counsel (docket #45), (3) reconsider the Court's order on her motion to reconsider (docket # 46), and (4) set an evidentiary hearing (docket # 47) are hereby DENIED.

/S/ David H. Hennessy David H. Hennessy UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE