Ditech Financial LLC v. Antelope Homeowners' Association

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 * * *

8 DITECH FINANCIAL LLC Case No. 2:17-cv-02029-RFB-NJK FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 9 ASSOCIATION ORDER

10 Plaintiffs,

12 v. 13 ANTELOPE HOMEOWNERS’ 14 ASSOCIATION LEODEGARIO D. SALVADOR 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court is Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador’s (“Salvador”) Motion for 19 Reconsideration. ECF No. 108. For the following reasons, the Court denies the order. 20 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 21 22 Plaintiffs Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Ditech Financial 23 LLC (“Ditech”) sued Defendants Antelope Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”) and 24 Leodegario D. Salvador dba GDS Financial (“Salvador”) on July 26, 2017. ECF No. 1. Fannie 25 Mae and Ditech sought declaratory relief that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted in 2012 26 under Chapter 116 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) did not extinguish Fannie Mae’s 27 28 interest in a Las Vegas property. Id. To obtain the relief, Plaintiffs asserted five claims in the 1 Complaint: (1) declaratory relief under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) against Salvador; (2) quiet title 2 under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) against Salvador; (3) declaratory relief under the Fifth and the 3 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against all Defendants; (4) quiet title 4 under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against Salvador; 5 6 and (5) a declaratory judgment against all Defendants. Id. Salvador answered the complaint on 7 August 8, 2017. ECF No. 12. On March 23, 2018, the Court stayed the case and denied all pending 8 motions without prejudice. ECF No. 69. On August 23, 2018 the Court lifted the stay. ECF No. 9 71. 10 Plaintiffs and the HOA both moved for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 73, 85. On 11 12 September 30, 2019 this Court entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against 13 Defendants on their quiet title claim. ECF No. 106. Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador moved to 14 reconsider the judgment on October 16, 2019. ECF No. 108. Responses were filed. ECF Nos. 111, 15 112. This written order now follows. 16 III. LEGAL STANDARD 17 18 Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows parties to move to alter or amend 19 a judgment within twenty-eight days of entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Whether or 20 not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. 21 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 22 However, “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 23 24 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 25 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. 26 v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation and citation 27 omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence 28 1 | for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id. (internal 2 quotation and citation omitted). Moreover, “[m]Jotions for reconsideration are disfavored. A movant must not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only to the extent) necessary to

5 explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts. A movant who repeats arguments will 6 | be subject to appropriate sanctions.” LR 59-1. 7 IV. DISCUSSION 8 Defendant Leodgario D. Salvador desires the Court to reconsider its order dismissing all claims and counterclaims in this matter after determining that the Federal Foreclosure Bar operated

to preserve the deed of trust held by Plaintiffs on a Las Vegas property. Defendant, representing 12 | himself pro se, specifically argues that the Court’s denial of the cross claims/counterclaims of 13 | Salvador should be reconsidered and that the HOA should pay damages to Defendant Salvador. 14 The Court denies Defendant’s motion for reconsideration for two reasons. First, Defendant ° Salvador brought no cross-claims against the HOA. The Court will not reconsider a judgment on

claims that were not actually raised in this case. Second, Defendant identifies no clear error, 18 | intervening controlling change in the law, or newly discovered evidence that warrants 19 | reconsideration of the Court’s prior decision. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion. 20 V. CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador’s Motion for Reconsideration

73 (ECF No. 108) is DENIED. 24 DATED: August 10, 2020

26 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, I 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

_3-