Durand et al v. Stephenson et al

Filing 162

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/17/13 DENYING 158 Motion for Reconsideration; and DENYING 159 Motion to Shorten Time. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWIND DURAND, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.
CANDICE STEPHENSON, et al.,

15

No.

09-cv-02038 JAM-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SHORTEN
TIME

Defendants.

16
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Edwin Durand

17
18

and Madelaine Durand’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion for

19

Reconsideration (Doc. #148) of the Court’s Denial of New Trial

20

Order (Doc. #157) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Shorten Time (Doc.

21

#159).

22

(collectively “Defendants”) oppose the motion for

23

reconsideration (Doc. #160).

24

For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for

25

reconsideration is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time

26

is DENIED.

27
28

1

Defendants Candice L. Stephenson and J. Wayne Strauch

Plaintiffs replied (Doc. #161).1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). No hearing was scheduled.
1

1
2

I.

BACKGROUND

The facts are well known to the parties and therefore the

3

following is only a brief summary.

The jury found that

4

Defendants’ converted Plaintiffs’ Westinghouse Airbrake Company

5

Articulated Loader model 1200 (“the Loader”) and awarded

6

Plaintiffs $6,000 in damages.

7

On March 6, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for a partial new trial on

8

damages (Doc. ##148, 149), which the Court denied on May 20, 2013

9

(“Order”) (Doc. #157).

Jury Verdict, Doc. #139, at 1-3.

10
11

II.

OPINION

12

A.

Legal Standard

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (“Rule 60(b)”) governs

14

the reconsideration of final orders of the district court.

15

60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final

16

order or judgment on grounds of “(1) mistake, inadvertence,

17

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence

18

. . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is

19

void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other

20

reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

22

Rule

In addition, Local Rule 230(j) (“Rule 230(j)”) governs

23

motions for reconsideration.

Rule 230(j) requires an affidavit

24

or brief setting forth, in part, “new or different facts or

25

circumstances . . . claimed to exist which did not exist or were

26

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist

27

for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not

28

shown at the time of the prior motion.”
2

L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4).

To

1

succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly

2

convincing nature to induce the Court to reverse its prior

3

decision.

4

Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in

5

part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.

6

1987).

See, e.g., Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

7

B.

8

Plaintiffs argue that the damages award violates California

9

Discussion

Civil Procedure Code Section 1263.320(a), that the jury

10

improperly awarded unjust enrichment, and that the admission of

11

David Churches’ testimony was prejudicial.

12

merely recapitulate the arguments presented in Plaintiffs’ motion

13

for a new trial.

14

requirements of Rule 60(b) and Rule 230(j).

15

Defendants argue, the jury was properly instructed on conversion

16

damages, the jury was instructed on fair market value not unjust

17

enrichment or indemnification, and there is no evidence that the

18

jury based its damages award on an improper ground.

19

it is presumed that the jury determined that the fair market

20

value of the Loader was $6,000 and Plaintiffs have not overcome

21

the presumption supporting the verdict.

22

Nahum, 624 F.3d 1213, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010) (A jury’s damages

23

verdict must be upheld whenever possible, “and all presumptions

24

are in favor of the judgment.”)

25
26

These arguments

Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
Moreover, as

Therefore,

See DSPT Int’l, Inc. v.

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for
reconsideration.

27

C.

Motion to Shorten Time

28

Plaintiffs also move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6
3

1

and Local Rule 144(e) to shorten the time for the motion for

2

reconsideration’s hearing (Doc. #159).

3

scheduled for the motion for reconsideration and the Court

4

determined it to be suitable for decision without oral argument

5

pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

6

Plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time as moot.

However, no hearing was

Accordingly, the Court denies

7
8

III. ORDER

9

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion for

10

reconsideration is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time

11

is DENIED.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 17, 2013

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4