FILED

FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel Terry L. No. 11-80086 Goddard ex rel Thomas C. Horne, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00131-FJM Plaintiff - Respondent, District of Arizona, Phoenix v.

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL ORDER

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation;

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS

INCORPORATED, a New York corporation; a wholly owned subsidiary of Countrywide Financial Corporation; FULL

SPECTRUM LENDING

INCORPORATED, a California corporation now known as Countrywide Home Loans Incorporated; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BANK OFAMERICA NA, a national bank; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, a foreign limited partnership and subsidiary of Bank of America NA; RECON TRUST COMPANY NA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America NA; UNKNOWN PARTIES, names as: Black Corporations 1-10,

Defendants - Petitioners. Submitted to a Motions Panel June 29, 2011

Before: CANBY, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10.

Respondent’s request that it be awarded its costs, contained in its response to

the motion to reconsider, is denied.

No further filings will be accepted in this closed case.

2 11-80086 Counsel Listing

Carolyn R. Matthews, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona.

Thomas K. Chenal, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona.

Matthew W. Close, Esquire, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California.

Don Bivens, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, Arizona.

Brian D. Boyle, Esquire, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC.

Robert Arthur Henry, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, Arizona.

3 11-80086

FILED

JAN 03 2012

State of Arizona v. Countrywide Financial, et al., 11-80086 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

GOULD, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I dissent and would grant reconsideration and would permit appeal. We

have decisions in different district courts in Nevada and Arizona going in opposite

directions on the same or very similar issues. Although we have permitted appeal

in Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., No. 11-80165, there are ways in which that

decision might be resolved without clarifying the legal points concerning

application of the Class Action Fairness Act to parens patriae actions in which an

attorney general seeks restitution for state citizens, on which our district courts are

divided. In my view, if there is one thing we should readily do as a circuit, it is to

take steps to eliminate intra-circuit conflicts in our district courts. A state attorney

general should face the same law and orientation of a district court in each of the

states within our circuit. To my thinking, it just doesn’t make sense to leave the

attorney generals of the various states at sea when we could easily simplify and

clarify matters by permitting appeal in both this decision coming from Arizona and

the related case in Nevada on which we are allowing an appeal. A panel hearing

both appeals on an expedited basis could provide an opinion that would set

uniform law within our circuit. I regret that our panel here passes on that

opportunity.