United States District Court, D. Arizona
Bryan W. Hummel and Sandra M. Dahl Living Trust, Plaintiff,
Rushmore Loan Management LLC, et al., Defendants.
G. CAMPBELL SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
August 7, 2018, the Court issued an order granting partial
summary judgment to Defendants Rushmore Loan Management, LLC
and U.S. Bank National Association and denying
Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. Doc. 87.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing
that the Court erred by (1) mischaracterizing a fact and (2)
not addressing certain arguments made in Plaintiff's
motion. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny
for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only
in rare circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No.
CV-05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15,
2008). A motion for reconsideration will be denied
“absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new
facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to
[the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable
diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v.
Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).
footnote in the background section, the Court's order
Plaintiff denies that it executed the February 2008 warranty
deed conveying the property to the Hummels and that the
Hummels were trustees of the Trust in February 2008.
See Doc. 79 at 3. These are not genuine disputes.
Plaintiff provides no documentary evidence regarding who was
trustee of the Trust at any time. Plaintiff simply submits
affidavits from the Hummels stating that they were not
trustees as of January 1, 2008. Doc. 80 at 3; Doc. 81 at 3.
These self-serving affidavits do not create a genuine dispute
where multiple documents clearly show that the Hummels held
themselves out as trustees of the Trust in February 2008, and
Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of these
documents or the Hummels' signatures. See F.T.C. v.
Publ'g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171
(9th Cir. 1997) (“A conclusory, self-serving affidavit,
lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is
insufficient to create a genuine issue of material
fact.”). In any event, this dispute is immaterial to
the issue on which the Court grants summary judgment.
Doc. 87 at 3 n.2.
argues that it “clearly outlined who was trustee of
[the trust] at various times, from its initial inception
until the present day.” Doc. 90 at 4 (citing Doc. 79-1
at 57-58). The cited document is Plaintiff's response to
an interrogatory, but the text of the interrogatory is not
included. Doc. 79-1 at 57-58. The response states:
Peter Dahl 5306 Barclay Ct Randolph, N.J. 07869 June 2017 -
Dana M. Dahl (Please contact the undersigned for contact
information for this trustee) January 1, 2008 - Current
Sandra M. Dahl and Bryan W. Hummel 2876 Country Club Dr.
Bullhead City, AZ 86442 Inception of trust until January 1,
Doc. 79-1 at 57-58.
the benefit of the interrogatory's text, the Court could
not rely on this evidence. Moreover, it does not change the
Court's observation that “Plaintiff provides no
documentary evidence regarding who was trustee of the Trust
at any time.” Doc. 87 at 3 n.2. In any event, the Court
did not rely on this fact in ruling on the summary ...