Ngaruiya v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Josephine Ngaruiya,
Plaintiff,
v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-01336-PHX-SHD
ORDER
At issue is Plaintiff Josephine Ngaruiya’s Motion to Amend or Correct Judgement
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), (Doc. 10). The motion will be denied.
“A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) is, at bottom, a motion
for reconsideration.” Holly Beth Jones v. Flagstaff Unified Sch. Dist., 2026 WL 847244,
at *1 (D. Ariz. 2026). “Rule 59(e) offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly
in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Id. (quoting Kona
Enter., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). “The Court will ordinarily
deny a motion for reconsideration . . . absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of
new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with
reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Manifest error means the “decision must strike
the court as more than just maybe or probably wrong—it must be dead wrong.” See De
Silva v. Pima Cnty. Gov’t, 2025 WL 48457, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2025) (quotation marks
omitted). Further, a motion for reconsideration must “point out with specificity” (1) “the
matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court,” (2)
Case 2:26-cv-01336-SHD Document 11 Filed 05/28/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons
they were not presented earlier,” and (3) “any specific modifications being sought in the
Court’s Order.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Such motions may not “repeat any oral or written
argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in
the Order.” Id.; see also Bullock v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 2025 WL 1115462, at *1 (D. Ariz.
2025) (“Motions for reconsideration are not the place for parties to make new arguments
not raised in their original briefs, nor should such motions be used to ask the Court to
rethink what it has already thought.” (quotation marks omitted)). If the movant does not
comply with these requirements, this alone “may be grounds for denial of the motion.”
LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).
Ngaruiya requests reconsideration of the April 9, 2026 order dismissing this case
with prejudice (the “Doc. 8 Order”). (See Doc. 10.) Ngaruiya fails to identify, however,
any “manifest error” in the decision or present “new facts or legal authority that could not
have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv
7.2(g)(1).
As discussed in the Doc. 8 Order, Ngaruiya’s claims against Wells Fargo were
dismissed with prejudice in a prior suit. (Doc. 8 at 2 (citing Ngaruiya v. Wells Fargo Bank,
No. 2:24-cv-00773-SMM, Doc. 1 at 16 (D. Ariz. April 5, 2024).) Ngaruiya does not appear
to seriously dispute this fact. Indeed, she admits that “[o]n January 28, 2026 Plaintiff’s
Wells Fargo case was dismissed with prejudice.” (Doc. 10 at 2.) Rather, Ngaruiya argues
that the Doc. 8 Order’s citation to a different case she brought in this district, Ngaruiya v.
Urgent Psychiatric Ctr., No. 2:26-cv-01332-JJT, (D. Ariz. 2026), was legal error because
that case was not dismissed with prejudice. (See Doc. 10 at 3.) But the Doc. 8 Order did
not rely on the preclusive effect of Urgent Psychiatric Center. That case was cited merely
to support the proposition that Wells Fargo Bank precluded her claims. Thus, that Urgent
Psychiatric Center was dismissed without prejudice does not warrant reconsideration of
the Doc. 8 Order.
Ngaruiya’s remaining arguments—concerning equitable tolling based on her
Case 2:26-cv-01336-SHD Document 11 Filed 05/28/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
involuntary mental-health treatment, pro se status, loss of property, and other
circumstances that allegedly impeded her ability to litigate—also do not justify
reconsideration. (Doc. 10 at 4–6.) Those circumstances do not identify any manifest error
in the Doc. 8 Order, nor do they present new facts or law that would alter the conclusion
that Ngaruiya’s claims are barred by the prior final judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Ngaruiya’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 59(e), (Doc. 10).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Ngaruiya’s request for electronic filing as
moot.
Dated this 28th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01336-SHD Document 11 Filed 05/28/26 Page 3 of 3