Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company

D. Nevada

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company

DecidedFebruary 10, 2023

Docket3:19-cv-00241

StatusUnknown

This text of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as trustee Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-MMD-CSD for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 7 2007-5 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series ORDER 2007-5, 8 Plaintiff, 9 v.

10 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant. 12 13 This is a title insurance coverage and bad faith action arising from the sale of a 14 house at a homeowners’ association (“HOA”) foreclosure sale. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, 15 N.A., brought this action against Defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance Company for 16 declaratory relief, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair 17 dealing, violation of Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violation of NRS § 18 686A.310, generally challenging Defendant’s decision not to cover a claim that Wells 19 Fargo submitted to Fidelity. (ECF No. 25 (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)).) Before the 20 Court are the parties’ motions for reconsideration of a prior order (ECF No. 52 (“Prior 21 Order”)) the Court issued in this case. (ECF Nos. 54, 57.)1 Because the parties merely 22 re-urge arguments the Court considered and rejected in the Prior Order—and as further 23 explained below—the Court will deny both motions. 24 Fidelity seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision in the Prior Order that the 25 CLTA 100(1)(a) endorsement covers Wells Fargo’s loss, arguing that “the HOA liens at 26 issue were created solely by statute, not the CC&Rs.” (ECF No. 54 at 3.) Wells Fargo 27 28 1The Court also reviewed the parties’ responses and replies. (ECF Nos. 56, 59, 2 in the Prior Order that the CLTA 100(2)(a) endorsement does not cover Wells Fargo’s 3 loss (ECF No. 57 at 10-13). Fidelity opposes Wells Fargo’s motion. (ECF No. 61.) 4 As both sides are quick to point out about the other side’s motion (ECF Nos. 56 at 5 1-9, 61 at 2),2 the parties’ pending motions consist of nothing more than arguments that 6 the Court considered and ultimately found unpersuasive in the Prior Order (ECF Nos. 26 7 at 15 (“Only the statute created the super-priority status of the foreclosed lien.”), 29 at 15- 8 16 (making the same argument Wells Fargo raises in its motion for reconsideration)). 9 Merely reasserting arguments the Court already rejected does not satisfy the 10 reconsideration standard. See Nunes, 375 F.3d at 808; see also Brown v. Kinross Gold, 11 U.S.A., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005) (“A motion for reconsideration is not 12 an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has 13 ruled.”) (citation omitted). The Court does not find it clearly erred in its Prior Order, or that 14 manifest injustice will result from it. See Nunes, 375 F.3d at 807-08. The Court accordingly 15 denies both pending motions for reconsideration. 16 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several 17 cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 18 determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the 19 motions before the Court. 20 It is therefore ordered that Fidelity’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 54) is 21 denied. 22 /// 23 /// 24

25 2“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 26 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 807-08 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 27 1263 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994)). Here, neither side argues that reconsideration is warranted because of newly discovered evidence or an intervening 28 change in controlling law. (ECF Nos. 54, 57.) The parties instead argue the Court either clearly erred or manifest injustice will result from the Prior Order. (Id.) 1 It is further ordered that Wells Fargo’s counter motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 2 || 57) is denied. 3 DATED THIS 10" Day of February 2023.

5 MIRANDA M. DU 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as trustee Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-MMD-CSD for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 7 2007-5 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series ORDER 2007-5, 8 Plaintiff, 9 v.

10 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant. 12 13 This is a title insurance coverage and bad faith action arising from the sale of a 14 house at a homeowners’ association (“HOA”) foreclosure sale. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, 15 N.A., brought this action against Defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance Company for 16 declaratory relief, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair 17 dealing, violation of Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violation of NRS § 18 686A.310, generally challenging Defendant’s decision not to cover a claim that Wells 19 Fargo submitted to Fidelity. (ECF No. 25 (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)).) Before the 20 Court are the parties’ motions for reconsideration of a prior order (ECF No. 52 (“Prior 21 Order”)) the Court issued in this case. (ECF Nos. 54, 57.)1 Because the parties merely 22 re-urge arguments the Court considered and rejected in the Prior Order—and as further 23 explained below—the Court will deny both motions. 24 Fidelity seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision in the Prior Order that the 25 CLTA 100(1)(a) endorsement covers Wells Fargo’s loss, arguing that “the HOA liens at 26 issue were created solely by statute, not the CC&Rs.” (ECF No. 54 at 3.) Wells Fargo 27 28 1The Court also reviewed the parties’ responses and replies. (ECF Nos. 56, 59, 2 in the Prior Order that the CLTA 100(2)(a) endorsement does not cover Wells Fargo’s 3 loss (ECF No. 57 at 10-13). Fidelity opposes Wells Fargo’s motion. (ECF No. 61.) 4 As both sides are quick to point out about the other side’s motion (ECF Nos. 56 at 5 1-9, 61 at 2),2 the parties’ pending motions consist of nothing more than arguments that 6 the Court considered and ultimately found unpersuasive in the Prior Order (ECF Nos. 26 7 at 15 (“Only the statute created the super-priority status of the foreclosed lien.”), 29 at 15- 8 16 (making the same argument Wells Fargo raises in its motion for reconsideration)). 9 Merely reasserting arguments the Court already rejected does not satisfy the 10 reconsideration standard. See Nunes, 375 F.3d at 808; see also Brown v. Kinross Gold, 11 U.S.A., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005) (“A motion for reconsideration is not 12 an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has 13 ruled.”) (citation omitted). The Court does not find it clearly erred in its Prior Order, or that 14 manifest injustice will result from it. See Nunes, 375 F.3d at 807-08. The Court accordingly 15 denies both pending motions for reconsideration. 16 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several 17 cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 18 determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the 19 motions before the Court. 20 It is therefore ordered that Fidelity’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 54) is 21 denied. 22 /// 23 /// 24

25 2“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 26 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 807-08 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 27 1263 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994)). Here, neither side argues that reconsideration is warranted because of newly discovered evidence or an intervening 28 change in controlling law. (ECF Nos. 54, 57.) The parties instead argue the Court either clearly erred or manifest injustice will result from the Prior Order. (Id.) 1 It is further ordered that Wells Fargo’s counter motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 2 || 57) is denied. 3 DATED THIS 10" Day of February 2023.

5 MIRANDA M. DU 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-na-v-fidelity-national-title-insurance-company-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack