United States District Court, D. Hawaii
RICHARD A. MATTHEWS, DONILEE J. MATTHEWS, JENNETTE E. MATTHEWS aka JENNETTE E. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff,
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA7, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-OA7, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.
17, 2017, pro se Plaintiffs Richard A. Matthews, Donilee J.
Matthews, and Jennette E. Matthews (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the Order Granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
(“Motion”). [Dkt. no. 45.] In an Entering Order
filed on July 18, 2017, the Court informed the parties that
it would not accept any further briefing on this matter.
[Dkt. no. 46.] The Court finds this matter suitable for
disposition without a hearing 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”). After careful consideration of the Motion and
the relevant legal authority, Plaintiffs' Motion is
hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.
background of this matter is well known the parties, and the
Court only repeats what is relevant to the Motion. This case
concerns Plaintiffs' property located in Lahaina, Hawai`i
on the Island of Maui. [First Amended Complaint for Damages
and Declaratory Relief (“Amended Complaint”),
filed 12/27/16 (dkt. no. 26), at pg. 4, ¶ 8.] On June
30, 2017, the Court filed its Order Granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 26]
(“6/30/17 Order”). [Dkt. no. 44. The 6/30/17 Order
ruled that the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted because “Plaintiffs
base[d] all of their claims upon their belief that Axiom
[Mortgage Bankers Corp. (“Axiom”)] acted as an
unlicensed mortgage broker, ” which was not true.
[6/30/17 Order at 6.]
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. Hawai`i 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).
seek reconsideration on two grounds: (1) “[t]he Court
did not address the fact that the Complaint states a clear
and precise claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act [(‘FDCPA')]”; and (2) the Court
incorrectly applied Beneficial Hawaii v. Kida, 96
Hawai`i 289, 30 P.3d 895 (2001). [Motion at 2, 7 (emphasis
omitted).] The Court will address each of these in turn.
Plaintiffs' FDCPA Claims
regard to the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.,
as part of their breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant made over fifty wrongful charges and debits
(“Count I”), [Amended Complaint at pgs. 9-15,
¶¶ 16-50, ] and then repeat some version of these
allegations in many of their other claims. See,
e.g., Amended Complaint at pg. 31, ¶ 117
(“Defendant imposed fraudulent charges and breached the
agreement”); id. at pg. 36, ¶ 133 (same).
In the 6/30/17 Order, the Court ruled that all of the claims
were based upon Plaintiffs' repeated, and incorrect,
assertion that the note and mortgage were void and
unenforceable. See 6/30/17 Order at 6-8. While the
Amended Complaint states, inter alia, that
“even if the Court would find the agreement . . .
valid, the Defendant breached the agreement by” the
allegedly wrongful and debits, [Amended Complaint at pg. 9,
¶ 16, ] the Court did not find these allegations
sufficient to stand on their own.
it is clear to the Court that many of the allegations in the
Amended Complaint have nothing to do with the Property.
On a [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, all
allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Fed'n of African Am. Contractors v. City of
Oakland, 96 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1996). However,
conclusory allegations of law, unwarranted deductions of
fact, and unreasonable inferences are insufficient to defeat
a motion to dismiss. Sprewell [v. Golden State