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

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.

15 On September 25, 2019, Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”), filed a motion to || reconsider (ECF No. 105) the court’s prior Order denying Nationstar’s motion for summary || judgment (ECF No. 59) from January 30, 2019. The court reviewed Nationstar’s motion and found || that it raised a question for the court to review and set a briefing schedule, ECF No. 107, SFR || Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) responded (ECF No. 111), and accordingly, Nationstar replied || (ECF No. 113).

21 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly allow for an aggrieved || party to seek reconsideration of a court’s judgment, federal courts have typically construed such || tequests as falling under Rule 59(e). A district court may reconsider a prior order only where the || court is presented with newly discovered evidence, an intervening change of controlling law, the || original decision was manifestly unjust, or where the prior order was clearly erroneous. United || States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998); School Dist. No. LJ, Multnomah County □□□ || AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions for reconsideration are “extraordinary || remedfies],” and they should only be used “sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation || 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 || Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th || Cir. 2003).

5 Upon review, the court finds that its previous order was premised, in part, on an incorrect || review of the evidence. The court agrees with Nationstar that the Discharge of Assignment, (ECF || 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, || the court finds that oral argument and presentation of evidence on the remaining issue regarding || the assignments and the chain of title for the at issue property is necessary. As the bench trial set || 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 || untimely as it was filed approximately 8 months after the court issued its prior ruling. See ECF || No. 106.

15 As both parties have indicated to the court that they are prepared to go forward with the || bench trial as set, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Nationstar’s motion for reconsideration || (ECF No. 105) is DENIED without prejudice.

18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court GRANTS the parties stipulation for extension || of time regarding pretrial related submissions (ECF No. 114) to October 17, 2019, as agreed.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 15th day of October, 2019. f | .

LARRY R. HICKS 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE