Gallusz v. LPP Mortgage, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Plaintiff Klara Gianna Gallusz’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying her application for a temporary restraining order concerning a threatened nonjudicial foreclosure. The court held that Plaintiff had not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court also denied Plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause regarding Rule 11 sanctions because the request did not comply with Rule 11(c)(2) and Defendant’s opposition was not frivolous or otherwise sanctionable.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was properly denied because Plaintiff identified neither newly discovered evidence nor an intervening change in controlling law, and she failed to show clear error or manifest injustice. Her arguments largely repeated matters previously considered by the court.
2. The request for Rule 11 sanctions was properly denied because it did not comply with Rule 11(c)(2)'s separate-motion and twenty-one-day safe-harbor requirements, and Defendant's opposition to the TRO application was not frivolous, legally unreasonable, without factual foundation, or brought for an improper purpose.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff established grounds for reconsideration of the order denying her application for a temporary restraining order.
2. Whether Defendant or its counsel should be required to show cause why sanctions should be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Disposition

other