United States of America et al v. Somina, Inc., et al.

Filing 244

MEMORANDUM and ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 207 signed by District Judge Lee H Rosenthal on 3/4/2024. (Lundstrom, T)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel.
NICOLE O’NEILL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SOMNIA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-433-LHR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Relator Nicolle O’Neill, on behalf of the United States of America and the State of
California, sued several health-service provider entities. (Docket Entry No. 1). In September 2018,
the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss portions of the Relator’s Second Amended
Complaint. (Docket Entry No. 95). In May 2022, the Relator moved for reconsideration of the
dismissal as to PST Services on the basis that “discovery in this action has revealed that PST’s
proposed interpretation of the Medicare regulations is simply incorrect.” (Docket Entry No. 207
at 8). The Relator specifically challenged the court’s ruling on the meaning of provisions defining
when the QZ modifier is properly used as a code that determines billing amounts. (Docket Entry
Nos. 95 at 11, 207 at 21).
Rule 54(b) allows orders to be “revised at any time before the entry of a judgment[.]” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b). “Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has ‘inherent
jurisdiction to modify, alter or revoke it.’” Am. States Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 245 F.
Supp. 3d 1224, 1225 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (quoting United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048–49

(9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1002 (2001)). A motion for reconsideration should not be
granted “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly
discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling
law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they
could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos
Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
Courts generally interpret the standards for Rule 54 to be coextensive with Rules 59 and
60. Gish v. Newsom, No. 20-CV-755, 2020 WL 6054912, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020); Jadwin
v. Cnty. of Kern, No. 07-CV-0026, 2010 WL 1267264, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010). Under
these rules, motions for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, and generally
within one year. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59–60. Local Rule 230(j) requires a movant to show “what new
or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon
such prior motion,” “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances
were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j).
The Relator has not explained why she waited almost four years to challenge the court’s
ruling on the motion to dismiss, a legal determination based on interpreting different provisions.
The Relator argues that discovery taken after the ruling on the motion to dismiss provided facts
inconsistent with the ruling. But the record shows that the discovery was not necessary to the legal
interpretation that the court made in issuing the ruling, which it based on the legal issue of the
meaning of governing regulations and provisions relating to the QZ and other codes. Even if some
of the discovery might have had a bearing on the court’s analysis, the Relator does not explain
why four years elapsed before it was brought to the court’s attention.

2

The Relator has not provided a basis to excuse the four years that passed before she sought
reconsideration. She cites to one out-of-circuit criminal case in which the district court made a
mathematical error in the offense-level calculation of a Guidelines sentence, and the defendant
moved for reconsideration a few months later. United States v. Jackson, 669 F. App’x 544 (11th
Cir. 2016). This case has nothing to do with the present years-long delay in requesting
reconsideration based on a ruling on a matter of law in a civil case.
Finally, applying Rule 60 cannot save the Relator’s claim for reconsideration. (Docket
Entry No. 210 at 8). Reconsideration requested under Rule 60(b)(2), providing relief on the basis
of “newly discovered evidence[,]” must still comply with the requirement that relief must be
requested under “reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment[.]”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
The time for reconsideration of this decision has long passed. The motion for
reconsideration is denied.

SIGNED on March 4, 2024, at Houston, Texas.

________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge

3