Hummel v. Rushmore Loan Managaement LLC

          ORDER

          DAVID G. CAMPBELL SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On 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 the motion.

         I. Legal Standard.

         Motions 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).

         II. Mischaracterized Fact.

         In a footnote in the background section, the Court's order stated:

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.

         Plaintiff 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 - Current

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, 2008

Doc. 79-1 at 57-58.

         Without 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 ...