Baker v. Walker et al
Filing
69
ORDER denying plaintiff's 62 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Kent J. Dawson on 9/13/11. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
THESOLONIA BAKER,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
J. WALKER, et al.,
14
Case No. 2:08-CV-01370-KJD-PAL
Defendants.
ORDER
15
16
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument/Reconsideration (#62). No
17
response in opposition was filed by Defendants. The Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary
18
judgment and entered judgment for Defendants on March 29, 20111. Plaintiff then filed the present
19
motion citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 (e) and 60 (b).
20
A motion to reconsider a final appealable order is appropriately brought under either Rule
21
59(e) or Rule 60 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d
22
1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000). Motions for reconsideration are committed to the discretion of the
23
trial court. See School Dist. No. 1J. Mutlinomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th
24
Cir. 1993).
25
26
A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no later than twenty-eight (28) days following entry of the
final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration is treated as a Rule 59(e)
1
motion if it is timely filed within the specified twenty-eight day period. See Am. Ironworkers &
2
Erectors Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001).1 Otherwise, the motion is
3
treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order. See id. Here, the Court considers
4
the motion under Rule 59(e) since it was filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of final
5
judgment.
6
Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is appropriate where: (1) the district court is presented with
7
newly discovered evidence or committed clear error; (2) the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or
8
(3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dist. No. 1J., 5 F.3d at 1263.
9
Motions made under Rule 59(e) “should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances.” 389
10
Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).
11
A motion for reconsideration should not merely present arguments previously raised; that is, a
12
motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to reiterate arguments
13
previously presented. See Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995); Beentjes v. Placer
14
County Air Pollution Control District, 254 F.Supp.2d 1159, at 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2003); Khan v.
15
Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party cannot have relief under this rule
16
merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”). “As a general rule, the Court does not
17
consider evidence on a motion for reconsideration if the evidence could have been provided before
18
the decision was rendered initially.” Arizona Civil Liberties Union v. Dunham, 112 F. Supp. 2d 927,
19
935 (D. Ariz. 2000) (citing School Dist. No. 1J., 5 F.3d at 1263). In order for a party to demonstrate
20
clear error, the moving party’s arguments cannot be the same as those made earlier. See Glavor v.
21
Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 1028, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 1994). If a party simply
22
inadvertently failed to raise the arguments earlier, the arguments are deemed waived. See id. It is
23
not an abuse of discretion for a district court to decline to address an issue raised for the first time in
24
25
1
26
In 2009, Rule 59 (e) was amended to change the time for filing a Rule 59 (e) motion from ten to twenty-eight
days.
2
1
a motion for reconsideration. See 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 178 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.
2
1999).
3
Plaintiff’s motion either contains arguments that he raised in the underlying briefing on the
4
motion for summary judgment, or arguments that he could have raised but chose not to. The Court
5
deems those arguments waived and will not address issues raised for the first time in the motion for
6
reconsideration. Further, the Court has already rejected Plaintiff’s reasoning and arguments that are
7
reiterated in this motion. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court is not grounds for reconsideration.
8
9
It appears that Plaintiff is also arguing that he has newly discovered evidence in the form of
affidavits dated April 13, 2011 attached to his motion for reconsideration. However, in order to meet
10
the “newly discovered evidence” requirement within the meaning of Rules 60(b)(2) and 59, parties
11
must show the evidence: “(1) is truly-newly discovered; (2) could not have been discovered through
12
due diligence; and (3) is of such a material and controlling nature that it demands a probable change
13
in the outcome.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1130 n.45 (E.D.
14
Cal. 2001); see also Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir.
15
1987). Failure to file documents in an original motion or opposition does not turn the late-filed
16
documents into newly discovered evidence. See School Dist. No. 1J., 5 F.3d at 1263. Under both
17
Rules 59 and 60, if the evidence was in the possession of the party before the judgment was rendered
18
it is not newly discovered. See Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208,
19
212 (9th Cir. 1987). Moreover, fact of possession makes clear the party did not use due diligence to
20
discover it. See Coastal Transfer, 833 F.2d at 212.
21
Plaintiff has made no showing that he could not have obtained the affidavits through due
22
diligence before his response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was due. Instead,
23
Plaintiff clearly waited until the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
24
entered final judgment before seeking evidence that might create an issue of material fact. Plaintiff’s
25
delay in obtaining the evidence is not justified and does present the “highly unusual circumstances”
26
required for granting relief under Rule 59.
3
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
2
Reargument/Reconsideration (#62) is DENIED.
3
DATED this 13th day of September 2011.
4
5
6
7
_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?