Anderson v. Benedict

Filing 77

ORDER denying 75 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/14/14. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRYON ANDERSON,

12
13
14

No. 2:10-cv-2833 KJM GGH

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MCM CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16
On July 25, 2014, plaintiff Bryon Anderson filed a renewed motion for

17
18

reconsideration of the court’s order of March 25, 2014 granting defendant’s motion for summary

19

judgment. After considering plaintiff’s arguments, the court DENIES the motion.

20

I. BACKGROUND

21

In his Third Amended Complaint (TAC) filed March 21, 2012, plaintiff, who is

22

African American, alleged that defendant MCM Construction paid him less than other workers

23

and responded to his complaints of discrimination by subjecting him to adverse treatment and

24

ultimately termination. TAC, ECF No. 24. He raised claims of discrimination, harassment,

25

wrongful termination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et

26

seq. Id.

27
28

On September 16, 2013, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF
No. 46. Plaintiff filed his own motion for summary judgment on October 11, 2013. ECF No. 50.
1

1

After considering both motions and the other papers filed by the parties, the magistrate judge

2

recommended that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted and plaintiff’s motion be

3

denied. ECF No. 60. The district court adopted these findings and recommendations on March

4

25, 2014 and judgment was entered on the same day. ECF Nos. 71, 72.

5

On April 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the

6

court had erred in not giving him additional time in which to gather evidence to oppose the

7

motion for summary judgment. He claimed the evidence he needed was in the arbitrator’s

8

possession, but he was unable to retrieve it in a timely fashion. ECF No. 73.

9

On July 9, 2014, the district judge then assigned to the case denied the motion,

10

noting it was not supported by evidence and did not meet the “rigorous standards for relief under

11

Rule 60 (b)(6).” ECF No. 74 at 2.

12

Plaintiff filed the current motion on July 25, 2014, attaching various documents.

13

He alleges these documents demonstrate that he was in fact not paid the correct wages and so the

14

increase from $18.77 an hour he was receiving to $24.19 an hour was not an overpayment as

15

MCM claimed and the magistrate judge found. See ECF Nos. 46-1 at 7, 60 at 15.

16

I. ANALYSIS

17

Under Rule 59(e), a party may move to “alter or amend a judgment” within

18

twenty-eight days of the entry of the judgment. Although the Rule does not list specific grounds

19

for such a motion, the Ninth Circuit has said that a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if “(1) the

20

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear

21

error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change

22

in controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). This

23

court has “wide discretion” when considering such a motion. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe

24

R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). The rule provides “an ‘extraordinary remedy, to

25

be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Kona

26

Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting James Wm. Moore et

27

al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)). A party filing a motion for

28

reconsideration should not ask the court “to rethink what the Court has already thought through”
2

1

simply because of a disagreement with the result of that thought process. Above the Belt, Inc. v.

2

Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). A motion to amend the

3

judgment “is a proper vehicle for seeking reconsideration of a summary judgment ruling.”

4

Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

5

To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling, it is

6

not timely. Nevertheless, because plaintiff explains the problems he had securing the evidence he

7

has now presented, the court will consider it.

8
9

Plaintiff has provided a number of documents he alleges show that the rate of pay
for a bridge builder never changes and so he was in fact not given the correct wages during the

10

time he received $18.77 an hour. What these documents do not show, however is that any

11

diminution of plaintiff’s rate of pay was the result of discrimination. Without this showing, the

12

documents do not demonstrate that the order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment

13

should be reconsidered.

14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF

15

No. 75, is denied.

16

DATED: October 14, 2014.

17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3