Martin v. Litton Loan Servicing LP

Filing 225

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/18/2017 DENYING Plaintiff's 223 Motion for Reconsideration. This matter is CONFIRMED for trial on Monday, 5/22/2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RENEE L. MARTIN,

12
13

No. 2:12-cv-00970-MCE-CKD

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

14
15
16

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 223)

19

of the Court's prior Order (ECF No. 221) denying Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of

20

Time and New Trial Date (ECF No. 218), which Defendant opposes (ECF No. 224). For

21

the following reasons, that Motion is DENIED.

22

A motion for reconsideration is properly brought pursuant to either Federal Rule of

23

Civil Procedure 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989).

24

A motion for reconsideration is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion if filed within twenty-eight

25

days of entry of judgment, but as a Rule 60(b) motion if filed more than twenty-eight days

26

after judgment. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d

27

892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion may be construed as a Rule 59 motion even

28

though it is not labeled as such, or not labeled at all. Taylor, 871 F.2d at 805.
1

1
2

Since this motion is was timely filed, the Court will treat it as a Rule 59(e) motion.
A court should be loath to revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary

3

circumstances show that its prior decision was clearly erroneous or would work a

4

manifest injustice. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817

5

(1988). This principle is embodied in the law of the case doctrine, under which “a court

6

is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the

7

same court, or a higher court in the identical case.” United States v. Alexander, 106

8

F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir.

9

1993)). Nonetheless, in certain limited circumstances, a court has discretion to

10
11

reconsider its prior decisions.
While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous

12

order, “the rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

13

finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,

14

229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 James William Moore, et al., Moore's

15

Federal Practice § 59.30(4) (3d ed. 2000)). Indeed, a district court should not grant a

16

motion for reconsideration “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court

17

is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

18

intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d

19

656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

20

(9th Cir. 1993)). Mere dissatisfaction with the court's order, or belief that the court is

21

wrong in its decision, is not grounds for relief under Rule 59(e). Twentieth Century-Fox

22

Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).

23

Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party filing a motion for reconsideration

24

to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist

25

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

26

Finally, motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) are addressed to the

27

sound discretion of the district court. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d

28

1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).
2

1

In order to succeed, a party making a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule

2

59(e) must “set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to

3

reverse its prior decision.” Pritchen v. McEwen, No. 1:10-cv-02008-JLT HC, 2011 WL

4

2115647, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2011) (citing Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

5

Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on

6

other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987)). A motion for reconsideration should not be

7

used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when the arguments or

8

evidence could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. 389 Orange St.

9

Partners, 179 F.3d at 665.

10

Furthermore, “courts avoid considering Rule 59(e) motions where the grounds for

11

amendment are restricted to either repetitive contentions of matters which were before

12

the court on its prior consideration or contentions which might have been raised prior to

13

the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal.

14

1991); see also Taylor, 871 F.2d at 805. This position stems from the district courts'

15

“concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency.”

16

Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009 (internal citations omitted). Rule 59(e) and motions for

17

reconsideration are therefore not intended to “give an unhappy litigant one additional

18

change to sway the judge.” Frito-Lay of P.R., Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.P.R.

19

1981) (quoting Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F. Supp. 226, 233 (N.D. Ohio 1967)).

20

Plaintiff offers insufficient justification to warrant reconsideration of this Court’s

21

prior order. Instead, she rehashes her prior arguments with a bit more detail, vaguely

22

elaborating on her medical condition and the opinions she’s received indicating she will

23

require surgery.1 Plaintiff still has not explained to the Court, however, how she

24

exercised the requisite due diligence in seeking through her prior motion to modify the

25

Court’s scheduling order. Nor has she explained how her medical condition has

26

changed since the Court’s prior order or how it prevents her from preparing for trial.

27
28

1

The Court is cognizant that Plaintiff was in a car accident at the beginning of this month as well,
but absent substantiated information as to how that accident interferes with Plaintiff’s ability to prepare for
trial, it has no bearing on the Court’s decision.

3

1

To the contrary, it appears from Plaintiff’s papers that she has been advised for weeks

2

that “immediate surgery” may be necessary, but nothing has yet been scheduled.

3

Moreover, this action is five years old, has been set for trial on the current date for

4

months, and only small discrete issues remain to be tried. Given the age of this case

5

and Plaintiff’s ability to file multiple motions and trial documents over the last few

6

months, it is apparent to the Court that Plaintiff is not only intimately familiar with the

7

remaining claims, but is also more than capable of participating in a one-day bench trial.

8

In sum, Plaintiff has failed to show “strongly convincing” facts warrant reconsideration.

9

Accordingly, for the reasons just stated and those articulated in Defendant’s Opposition,

10

Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 223) is DENIED. This matter is CONFIRMED for trial on

11

Monday, May 22, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 18, 2017

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4