United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S “MOTION FOR THE
COURT TO REVISIT AND RECONSIDER ITS' PRIOR DECISION AND
RULE ACCORDINGLY TO NOTICING THAT THE TWO ARE DISTINCT FROM
E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.
January 31, 2017, this Court issued its Order Granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for
a More Definite Statement (“1/31/17 Order”).
[Dkt. no. 45.] On February 13, 2017, pro se Plaintiff
Magdalena Marcos Pascua (“Plaintiff”) filed a
timely motion for reconsideration of the 1/31/17 Order
(“Motion for Reconsideration”). [Dkt. no. 45.]
The Court has considered the Motion for Reconsideration as a
non-hearing matter pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local
Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the
District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”).
Court has previously stated that a motion for reconsideration
“must accomplish two goals. First, a motion for
reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court should
reconsider its prior decision. Second, a motion for
reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.” See Davis v. Abercrombie, Civil No.
11-00144 LEK-BMK, 2014 WL 2468348, at *2 (D. Hawaii June 2,
2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This
district court recognizes three circumstances where it is
proper to grant reconsideration of an order: “(1) when
there has been an intervening change of controlling law; (2)
new evidence has come to light; or (3) when necessary to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”
Tierney v. Alo, Civ. No. 12-00059 SOM/KSC, 2013 WL
1858585, at *1 (D. Hawaii May 1, 2013) (citing School
District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th
Cir. 1993)). “Mere disagreement with a previous order
is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”
Davis, 2014 WL 2468348, at *3 n.4 (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Riley v. Nat'l Ass'n of Marine Surveyors,
Inc., Civil No. 14-00135 LEK-RLP, 2014 WL 4794003, at *1
(D. Hawai`i Sept. 25, 2014).
majority of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration argues
that this Court failed to take into account the fact that she
is proceeding pro se. It is true that this Court must
liberally construe Plaintiff's pleadings because she is
proceeding pro se. See, e.g., Eldridge v.
Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The
Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally
construe the ‘inartful pleading' of pro se
litigants.” (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454
U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 701, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982) (per
curiam))). Although not expressly stated in the 1/31/17
Order, this Court did liberally construe Plaintiff's
Complaint in light of the fact that she is proceeding pro se.
Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of
the 1/31/17 Order because this Court failed to consider her
pro se status, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
also argues that this Court should reconsider the 1/31/17
Order “because Defendant did not cite res judicata, or
collateral estoppel, ” and because the instant case and
the pending foreclosure action against her in state court
(“Foreclosure Action”) “are distinct from
each other.” [Motion for Reconsideration at 1.]
However, the 1/31/17 Order did not rely on either res
judicata or collateral estoppel. This Court dismissed
Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to the prior exclusive
jurisdiction doctrine. [1/31/17 Order at 5-9.]
Plaintiff's argument regarding res judicata and
collateral estoppel does not show that there has been either
an intervening change in the law or newly discovered evidence
since this Court issued the 1/31/17 Order. Further, her
argument does not show that reconsideration of the 1/31/17
Order is necessary to correct a clear legal error. As to
Plaintiff's res judicata and collateral estoppel
argument, her Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Plaintiff reiterates her allegation that Defendant CIT Bank,
N.A., formerly known as OneWest Bank N.A.
(“Defendant”) is suing the wrong person in the
Foreclosure Action. However, the 1/31/17 Order stated that,
because of the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint based
on the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, this Court made
no findings or conclusions about the merits of her claims.
[1/31/17 Order at 9-10 n.4.] In other words, this Court could
not determine whether or not Defendant sued the proper party
in the Foreclosure Action. To the extent that the Motion for
Reconsideration argues that this Court should have addressed
Plaintiff's claims on the merits, the Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED.
basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff's “Motion for the
Court to Revisit and Reconsider Its' Prior Decision and
Rule Accordingly to Noticing that the Two Are Distinct from
Each Other, ” filed February 13, 2017, is HEREBY
DENIED. There being no remaining claims in this case, this
Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to close the case