Toone et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, No. 2:2011cv00170 - Document 49 (D. Utah 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 40 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and to Reconsider Decision. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 12/13/2011. (tls)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION BRYAN TOONE and JOLYNNE TOONE Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO RECONSIDER DECISION vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; PREMIER MORTGAGE CORPORATION OF AMERICA; ACCUBANK MORTGAGE CORPORATION DBA ACCUMORTGAGE CORPORATION; NORWEST MORTGAGE, INC.; LASALLE BANK N.A., as Trustee; BANK OF AMERICA, NA; ETITLE INSURANCE AGENCY; LUNDBERG & ASSOCIATES; KENT W. PLOTT; MARK S. MIDDLEMAS; DOES 150 Case No. 2:11-CV-170 Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and to Reconsider Decision.1 1 Docket No. 40. 1 Plaintiffs Motion was filed within 28 days of the final judgment as to this matter entered by this Court. [A] motion to reconsider filed within [28] days after entry of judgment is considered a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. 2 The Tenth Circuit has recognized the following grounds as warranting a motion to reconsider under Rule 59(e): (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. 3 Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party s position, or the controlling law. . . . It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing. 4 Because Plaintiffs have not alleged any grounds adequate for this Court to reconsider the judgment under Rule 59(e), the Court will deny this request. As to Plaintiffs request for leave to amend their complaint, it is well established that [a]fter a district court enters a final judgment . . . it may not entertain motions for leave to amend unless the court first sets aside or vacates the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or 60(b). 5 Accordingly, the Court will also deny Plaintiff s request to file an amended complaint. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and to Reconsider Decision (Docket No. 40) is DENIED. 2 Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2005) (second alteration to reflect change in Rule 59). 3 Id. (citing Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995)). 4 Id. 5 Combs v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers LLP, 382 F.3d 1196, 1205 (10th Cir. 2004). 2 DATED December 13, 2011. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.