State of California v. United States Department of Labor et al

Filing 166

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/12/19 GRANTING 156 Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The Motion for Leave to Intervene 140 filed by AmalgamatedTransit Union ("ATU") is considered WITHDRAWN. The court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the permanent injunction entered in this case at ECF No. 137 .(Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 2:13-cv-02069-KJM-DB

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the court’s March 14, 2019 minute order

19

closing the case and declining to retain jurisdiction, ECF No. 155. Mot., ECF No. 156. Plaintiffs

20

note the order was based on the court’s apparent understanding that the parties had reached a

21

settlement, when, in fact, they had not. See Mot. at 2 (citing March 14, 2019 Minute Order, ECF

22

No. 155 (“[T]he court in its discretion declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the

23

parties’ settlement agreement.”)); Joint Status Report, ECF No. 154, at 2 (“Plaintiffs respectfully

24

request that the Court retain jurisdiction to ensure that action by the Defendants on [the]

25

applications [at issue in this case] complies with the Court’s orders.”). Plaintiffs further argue

26

federal courts frequently and appropriately retain jurisdiction to enforce court-issued injunctions,

27

and the court should follow suit in this case. Id. Defendants disagree, arguing plaintiffs’ request

28

to retain jurisdiction is a request for “new relief on the merits” and any attempt to enforce the
1

1

injunction should be made by seeking relief in a separate administrative action against the agency.

2

See Opp’n, ECF No. 164 at 5.

3

District courts have wide discretion to consider and vacate prior orders. See

4

Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041,

5

1046 (9th Cir. 2003). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly

6

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

7

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn

8

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal

9

quotation marks omitted & alteration in original). “A party seeking reconsideration must show

10

more than a disagreement with the [c]ourt’s decision, and recapitulation . . . of that which was

11

already considered by the [c]ourt in rendering its decision.” Le v. Sandor, No. 14–01464, 2014

12

WL 5305894, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, in

13

this district, a motion for reconsideration is governed by Local Rule 230(j), which requires a party

14

to set forth, among other things, “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which

15

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

16

motion.” Local Rule 230(j)(3).

17

Plaintiffs have established the court clearly erred in its March 14, 2019 order; the

18

order was based on the court’s in fact erroneous understanding that the parties had reached a

19

settlement. See March 14, 2019 Minute Order. Having considered the parties’ current briefing

20

on the issue, the court will retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of the injunction entered at

21

ECF No. 137. See Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1390 (9th Cir. 1995) (“District

22

courts do, and must, have the authority to punish contemptuous violations of their orders.”);

23

McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178, 1183 (7th Cir. 1985) (“When an equity case ends in a

24

permanent injunction, the trial court, with or without an explicit reservation of jurisdiction, retains

25

jurisdiction to enforce the injunction, as by contempt proceedings.”). As one court in this Circuit

26

has explained,

27
28

[t]he question of continuing jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing
the terms of a permanent injunction is a different matter than the
question of jurisdiction over the broader settlement agreement.
2

1
2

When a court has issued a permanent injunction, jurisdiction over the
injunction is not a question of ancillary jurisdiction, but rather stems
from the court's inherent authority to enforce its own orders.

3

M Elecs., Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc., No. 12-CV-2884-BAS-MDD, 2016 WL 4063806, at *2 (S.D.

4

Cal. Feb. 17, 2016) (citations omitted).

5

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS:

6

1.

minute order is GRANTED;

7
8

2.

Transit Union ("ATU") is considered WITHDRAWN; and

10

12
13

In light of the representations in the parties’ Joint Status Report filed at
ECF No. 154, the Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Amalgamated

9

11

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 14, 2019

3.

The court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the permanent injunction
entered in this case at ECF No. 137.

DATED: June 12, 2019.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3