Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. George Clinton

Filing 294

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 288 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lom)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

HENDRICKS & LEWIS PLLC,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

Case No. 2:10-cv-09921-ODW(PLA)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

GEORGE CLINTON,

MOTION FOR

Defendant.

15

RECONSIDERATION [288]
I.

16

INTRODUCTION

17

On December 5, 2014, the Court issued two orders in this case. First, the Court

18

granted Plaintiff Hendricks & Lewis PLLC’s (“H & L”) Motion for Assignment

19

Order, Restraining Order, and Turnover Order. (ECF No. 285.) The Court also

20

denied Defendant George Clinton’s Motion for Release of Levies, Stay of

21

Enforcement, and Implementation of Installment Payment Plan. (ECF No. 286.)

22

Pending before the Court is Clinton’s Motion for Reconsideration, in which he asks

23

the Court to reconsider both of the orders it issued on December 5, 2014. (ECF No.

24

288.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Clinton’s Motion for

25

Reconsideration.1

26

///

27
28

1

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

II.

1

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

This action began over four years ago when H & L filed a Certificate of

3

Judgment from the Western District of Washington with this Court. (ECF No. 1.)

4

The Judgment was in favor of H & L and against Clinton in the amount of

5

$1,675,639.82. (Id.) The underlying dispute involved a decade-old attorneys’ fee

6

battle between H & L and Clinton. After filing the Certificate of Judgment, H & L

7

filed a Motion for Assignment Order, Restraining Order, and Turnover Order on

8

December 27, 2010. (ECF No. 5.) The Court initially denied H & L’s Motion on

9

September 27, 2011 (ECF No. 171), but that order was subsequently vacated and

10

remanded by the Ninth Circuit, see Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton, 596 Fed.

11

Appx. 521 (9th Cir. 2014).

12

On remand, the Court then granted H & L’s previously-denied Motion and

13

denied Clinton’s Motion for Release of Levies, Stay of Enforcement, and

14

Implementation of Installment plan. (ECF Nos. 285, 286.) Clinton now moves for

15

the Court to reconsider those Orders. The Court incorporates the Findings of Fact

16

from those previous Orders. (See id.)
III.

17

LEGAL STANDARD

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a party to seek reconsideration of

19

a final judgment or court order. The Central District of California Local Rules

20

provide the proper bases for which a party may seek reconsideration:

21

(a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court

22

before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not

23

have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of

24

such decision; (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law

25

occurring after the time of such decision; or (c) a manifest showing of a

26

failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such

27

decision.

28

L.R. 7-18.

2

1

Additionally, “[u]nder L.R. 7-18, a motion for reconsideration may not be made

2

on the grounds that a party disagrees with the Court’s application of legal precedent.”

3

Pegasus Satellite Television, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 968, 981 (C.D.

4

Cal. 2004).
IV.

5

DISCUSSION

6

Clinton’s Motion to Reconsider is exclusively based on the Court’s alleged

7

“failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision.” (ECF

8

No. 288 [“Def. Br.”].) Clinton identifies two sets of facts that the Court allegedly

9

failed to consider: (1) the out-of-state status of four affected entities, and (2) the

10

definition of the term “contract rights.”2 (Id. at 2, 5.) As discussed below, both

11

arguments are meritless.

12

A.

Out-of-State Entities

13

Clinton first argues that the Court’s December 5, 2014 Order “affirmatively

14

allowed the ‘reverse piercing’ and assignment of assets and royalty income streams”

15

of four out-of-state entities not previously named as parties. (Def. Br. at 2.) Clinton

16

identifies the following four entities: (1) C Kunspyruhzy, LLC, a Florida company;

17

(2) Tick Free Music Publishing, Inc., a Florida corporation; (3) What Productions,

18

Inc., a Florida corporation; and (4) A Scoop of Poop Productions, Inc., a Michigan

19

corporation. (Id.)

20

There are two independent grounds to reject this argument. First, Clinton

21

makes no “manifest showing” of any failure to consider material facts. The Court

22

specifically considered each of Clinton’s identified facts when granting H & L’s

23

Motion. In the Court’s December 5 Order, the Court explicitly identifies each of the

24

four entities in question as well as the entities’ citizenship. (See ECF No. 285 at 5.)

25

Second, Clinton’s argument is nothing more than a recitation of a previously rejected

26

legal argument. In his original opposition to H & L’s Motion, Clinton made this exact

27

2

28

Clinton’s claim that typos in the Final Judgment “make it difficult to ascertain the Court’s
meaning” is rejected. Even assuming that the identified lines of text are in fact typos, which the
Court rejects, Clinton offers no explanation as to how the meaning is misconstrued.

3

1

argument. (See ECF No. 277.) Local Rule 7-18 provides that “[n]o motion for

2

reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in

3

support of or in opposition to the original motion.”

4

argument is in direct conflict with this Court’s local rules and makes no manifest

5

showing of this Court’s failure to consider material facts. Therefore, the Court rejects

6

this first argument.

7

B.

L.R. 7-18.

Clinton’s first

“Contract Rights” Clarification

8

In his second argument, Clinton “seeks reconsideration and/or clarification of

9

the definition of the term ‘contract rights’ as set forth in [the Order].” (Def. Br. at 5.)

10

Clinton claims that the phrase “contract rights” could be misinterpreted to include

11

“information which is different in kind than the rights to payment of money.” (Id.)

12

The Court finds that on the balance, the December 5, 2014 Order is quite clear

13

that its purpose is to fulfill a judgment of $1,304,340.72. Clinton is attempting to

14

manufacture confusion by singling out a single term. However, the Order is not

15

confusing when read in its entirety. The Court rejects Clinton’s second argument.
V.

16
17
18
19

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Clinton’s Motion for
Reconsideration. (ECF No. 288.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

February 5, 2015

22
23
24

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

4