Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Curti Ranch Two Maintenance Association, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 15, 2019
• Docket: 3:17-cv-00699
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 ok 8 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00699-LRH-CBC 9 Plaintiff, | ORDER 10 v. 11 CURTI RANCH TWO MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC.; SFR INVESTMENTS 12 POOL 1, LLC, 13 Defendants. 14 15 On September 25, 2019, Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”), filed a motion to 16 || reconsider (ECF No. 105) the court’s prior Order denying Nationstar’s motion for summary 17 || judgment (ECF No. 59) from January 30, 2019. The court reviewed Nationstar’s motion and found 18 || that it raised a question for the court to review and set a briefing schedule, ECF No. 107, SFR 19 || Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) responded (ECF No. 111), and accordingly, Nationstar replied 20 || (ECF No. 113). 21 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly allow for an aggrieved 22 || party to seek reconsideration of a court’s judgment, federal courts have typically construed such 23 || tequests as falling under Rule 59(e). A district court may reconsider a prior order only where the 24 || court is presented with newly discovered evidence, an intervening change of controlling law, the 25 || original decision was manifestly unjust, or where the prior order was clearly erroneous. United 26 || States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998); School Dist. No. LJ, Multnomah County □□□ 27 || AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions for reconsideration are “extraordinary 28 || remedfies],” and they should only be used “sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation

1 || of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 2 || Whether or not to grant reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the district court. Navajo 3 || Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 4 || Cir. 2003). 5 Upon review, the court finds that its previous order was premised, in part, on an incorrect 6 || review of the evidence. The court agrees with Nationstar that the Discharge of Assignment, (ECF 7 || No. 105-6), does not pertain to the property at issue and should not have been considered. 8 || However, that alone is not dispositive for the motion to reconsider. After reviewing the briefing, 9 || the court finds that oral argument and presentation of evidence on the remaining issue regarding 10 || the assignments and the chain of title for the at issue property is necessary. As the bench trial set 11 || before the court revolves solely on this issue, the court sees no reason to vacate the trial date. 12 || Moreover, as the court noted during Calendar Call on September 26, 201 9, Nationstar’s motion is 13 || untimely as it was filed approximately 8 months after the court issued its prior ruling. See ECF 14 || No. 106. 15 As both parties have indicated to the court that they are prepared to go forward with the 16 || bench trial as set, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Nationstar’s motion for reconsideration 17 || (ECF No. 105) is DENIED without prejudice. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court GRANTS the parties stipulation for extension 19 || of time regarding pretrial related submissions (ECF No. 114) to October 17, 2019, as agreed. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 15th day of October, 2019. f | . 23 LARRY R. HICKS 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26