Russell T McAdams v. JNJW Enterprises Inc et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO DECISION BY OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, UNDER FRCP60(b) 27 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc) Modified on 3/27/2014 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8
9
10

RUSSELL T. MCADAMS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

Case No. 2:13-cv-08226-DSF(SHx)
ORDER DENYING MOTION IN

13

JNJW ENTERPRISES INC., BEAVEX

OPPOSITION TO DECISION BY

14

INCORPORATED,

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, UNDER FRCP

15

Defendants.

60(b) [27]

16

On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff Russel T. McAdams filed a “Motion in

17

Opposition to Decision by Otis D. Wright, II, under FRCP 60(b).” (ECF No. 27.) It

18

appears that McAdams has filed an ostensible reconsideration motion of this Court’s

19

March 12, 2014 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Recusal of Judge Dale S.

20

Fischer. (See ECF No. 26.) But after thoroughly reviewing McAdam’s Motion, the

21

Court finds that he has not presented a valid basis for reconsidering the Court’s

22

previous Order denying McAdams’s recusal motion. The Court therefore DENIES

23

this Motion. (ECF No. 27.)

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a court to relieve a party of an

25

order for, among other reasons, “any other reason that justifies relief.”

26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Under Ninth Circuit case law, a party may only seek relief

27

under this catchall provision when the party demonstrates “extraordinary

28

circumstances” warranting the court’s favorable exercise of discretion. Cmty. Dental

1

Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). To satisfy its burden under this

2

lofty standard, a party must prove both (1) an injury and (2) circumstances beyond its

3

control. Id.

4
5

The Local Rules further elucidate the proper bases for which a party may seek
reconsideration:

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such

12

decision.

13

L.R. 7-18. Additionally, “[n]o motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat

14

any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the

15

original motion.” Id.

16

McAdams “opposes” several portion of this Court’s previous Order.

He

17

disagrees with the Court’s characterization that he failed to provide an affidavit setting

18

forth “the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists” to recuse

19

Judge Fischer as required by 28 U.S.C. § 144. (Mot. 1–2.) He contends that the

20

evidence he produced before Judge Fischer somehow fulfills this requirement.

21

But McAdams blurs the line between the merits of his recusal motion and those

22

of his substantive claims undergirding his lawsuit. McAdams did not comply with 28

23

U.S.C. § 144, because he did not provide a required affidavit. Any evidence he

24

produced before Judge Fischer related to his claims against Defendant JNJW

25

Enterprises Inc.—not Judge Fischer’s alleged bias or prejudice. McAdams therefore

26

has not satisfied a valid basis for reconsidering his failure to comply with § 144.

27

McAdams also disputes the fact that he failed to keep the Court apprised of his

28

current address as required by Local Rule 41-6. He argues that the Court based this

2

1

finding solely on the statements of Defendant’s attorney. But that is not the case.

2

There are four entries on the docket in this action from the Clerk of Court noting that

3

mail sent to McAdams was returned as undeliverable as addressed. (ECF Nos. 12, 13,

4

15, 16.) McAdams only updated his address on December 20, 2013—over two weeks

5

after Judge Fischer exercised her authority under Local Rule 41-6 to grant

6

Defendant’s dismissal motion with prejudice. Again, McAdams failed to identify a

7

proper basis for reconsideration under this argument.

8

McAdams spends a large portion of the remainder of his Motion arguing that

9

Judge Fischer misapplied the law with respect to the lien placed on Plaintiff’s

10

earnings. These arguments misapprehend the nature of a recusal motion. Recusal

11

deals with whether the presiding judge has any bias or prejudice that will preclude her

12

from issuing an impartial decision. Recusal does not depend on the merits of a

13

plaintiff’s claims.

14

reconsideration motion into a mini-appeal of Judge Fischer’s Order.

It is therefore inappropriate for McAdams to turn this

15

Lastly, McAdams asserts that this Court denied him a chance to be heard

16

regarding his recusal motion. But McAdams was heard when he submitted his brief in

17

support of his motion. As the Ninth Circuit has noted, “It is well-settled that there is

18

no constitutional due process right to oral argument.” Sovereign Gen. Ins. Servs., Inc.

19

v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 359 F. App’x 705, 708 (9th Cir. 2009).

20

The Court consequently finds that McAdams has not set forth a valid basis for

21

reconsidering its previous Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Recusal of Judge

22

Dale S. Fischer. The Court thus DENIES McAdams’s Motion. (ECF No. 27.)

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

March 27, 2014

25
26
27

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

3