Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Matthews v. Bank of New York Mellon

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

August 14, 2017

RICHARD A. MATTHEWS, DONILEE J. MATTHEWS, JENNETTE E. MATTHEWS aka JENNETTE E. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff,
v.
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

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.

         On July 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

         The 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.[1] 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.]

         STANDARD

         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. 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).

         DISCUSSION

         Plaintiffs 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.

         I. Plaintiffs' FDCPA Claims

         With 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.

         Second, 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.