DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral Genossenschaftsbank v. Choice Cash Advance LLC ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DZ BANK AG DEUTSCHE ZENTRAL No. 13-35607
GENOSSENSCHAFTSBANK,
FRANKFURT AM MAIN, New York D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01312-JLR
Branch,
Plaintiff - Appellee, MEMORANDUM*
v.
CHOICE CASH ADVANCE LLC, FKA
Choice Insurance Agency LLC,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Argued May 7, 2015; Submitted June 10, 2015
Seattle, Washington
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: GOULD and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges and BLOCK,** Senior District
Judge.
In this case arising from a loan default, Choice Cash appeals the district
court’s denial of its motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision to grant
summary judgment to DZ Bank.1 We review only the district court’s denial of
reconsideration because Choice Cash does not appeal the underlying decision
granting summary judgment. See Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not
specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (quoting United
States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 1992)) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). We affirm.
“[O]ur review of a denial of a motion to reconsider is for abuse of
discretion.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial
decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
**
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1
The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not recount them here.
2
controlling law. There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances
warranting reconsideration.” Id. at 1263 (citation omitted).
In its motion and on appeal, Choice Cash failed to point to any newly
discovered evidence or intervening change in controlling law. Further, our review
of the record did not reveal any clear error or manifest injustice. Specifically, there
is no clear error or manifest injustice in the district court’s conclusion that the
Franchise Agreement and the Loan Agreement were separate contracts. And the
record clearly supports the district court’s conclusion that Choice Cash did not
dispute DZ Bank’s chain of title but instead repeatedly and expressly
acknowledged DZ Bank’s ownership of the loan. Finally, rather than presenting an
intervening change in controlling law, see Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263, Choice
Cash points to unpublished, distinguishable, and out-of-circuit case law. See DZ
Bank AG Deutsche Zentral Genossenschaftsbank v. McCranie, 513 F. App’x 911
(11th Cir. 2013) (involving borrower who continually disputed bank’s loan
ownership, and presented evidence that a different bank owned the loan); Tri-State
Truck Ins., Ltd. v. First Nat’l Bank of Wamego, No. 09-4158-SAC, 2011 WL
3349153 at *15–17, *20 (D. Kan. Aug. 3, 2011) (holding that borrower—who at
no point conceded bank’s ownership—owed no payments to the bank because it
did not own the loan), rev’d in part and remanded, 535 F. App’x 653, 662 (10th
3
Cir. 2013) (reversing in part the relevant ruling and holding that bank was a third-
party beneficiary). The district court therefore committed no abuse of discretion
by denying Choice Cash’s motion for reconsideration.
AFFIRMED.
4