United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
ASHRAF N. TADROS and SHAUN M. TADROS, Plaintiffs,
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO CITIBANK, N.A.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; BANK OF AMERICA NA; SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC; QUALITY LOAN SERVICING CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON; ROSE CITY VENTURES, INC.; and RAIN CITY CAPITAL OF OREGON, LLC, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
AIKEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on: (1) plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to Amend (doc, 52); (2) plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration (doc. 59); and (3) defendant Rose City
Ventures, Inc.'s ("Rose City") Motion to Enter
Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claim to Quiet Title and
Violation of Oregon TDA (doc. 54). For the reasons stated
below, the motions are DENIED.
parties are familiar with the background facts of this case,
which are discussed at length in the Court's May 15, 2018
Opinion and Order granting defendant Wilmington Trust,
National Association as Successor Trustee to Citybank, N.A.
as Trustee of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Inc.,
Bear Stearns ARM Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2006-4's ("Wilmington's") motion to
dismiss. Tadros v. Wilmington Trust, Natl Assn., No.
3:17-cv-01623-AA, 2018 WL 2248453 (D. Or. May 15, 2018). The
Court will not retread them here.
order, the Court concluded that the res judicata
effect of two bankruptcy court orders barred plaintiffs from
making any claim that depends on Wilmington's lack of
beneficial interest in the promissory note and deed of trust.
Because that contention was essential to plaintiffs'
claims for a declaratory judgment, violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), violation of
Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act, quite title, and
unjust enrichment, the Court dismissed those claims with
prejudice. Without the allegation that Wilmington lacked a
beneficial interest in the promissory note on the date of the
foreclosure sale, the allegations supporting plaintiffs'
remaining claims were insufficient to state a claim for
relief. Accordingly, the Court also dismissed those claims
but did so without prejudice and ordered that plaintiffs may
file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint or
timely seek an extension of time to file such a motion within
timely seeking an extension of time, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file an amended complaint on June 26,
2018. On July 5, 2018, Rose City filed a motion for entry of
judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims for quiet title
and violation of the Oregon Trust Deed Act. In response on
July 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider my
opinion and order granting the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
seek reconsideration of the Court's May 15, 2018 Order
and Opinion dismissing their claims.  A court should reconsider
its earlier decision if it "(1) is presented with newly
discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial
decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an
intervening change in controlling law." Sch. Dist.
No. IJ v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v.
Model, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n, 5 (9th Cir. 1989).
Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used
sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of
judicial resources." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
argue that the Court clearly erred when it concluded that,
under the doctrine of res judicata, two bankruptcy
court orders barred plaintiffs from making any claim that
depends on Wilmington's lack of beneficial interest in
the promissory note and deed of trust. Originally, plaintiffs
responded to Wilmington's res judicata argument
by (1) asserting that the order granting relief from stay had
been obtained by fraud; (2) arguing that it was
"debatable" that plaintiffs actually received
notice of the transfer of claim and that they did not have a
meaningful opportunity to challenge the transfer given how
late it was in the bankruptcy proceedings; and (3) arguing
that res judicata should not apply because
plaintiffs wanted to challenge Wilmington's interest
during the 2013 bankruptcy proceedings but were unable to.
plaintiffs argue that (1) the order granting relief from stay
does not preclude plaintiffs from challenging
Wilmington's interest because the validity of
Wilmington's claim was not litigated in the stay
proceedings and (2) the order granting the transfer of claim
does not have preclusive effect because plaintiffs did not
have standing to object to the transfer.
arguments do not rely on newly discovered evidence or an
intervening change in controlling law. Furthermore,
plaintiffs could have raised these issues before and they are
therefore waived. Motions for reconsideration "may
not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
for the first time when they could reasonably have been
raised earlier in the litigation." Kona Enters.,
Inc., 229 F, 3d at 890 (emphasis in original).
Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend
Proposed Second Amended Complaint realleges plaintiffs'
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and
improper accounting/FDCPA claims. The proposed complaint also
adds new claims for ...