Blankenchip et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al
Filing
90
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/20/2016 DENYING 88 Motion for Reconsideration; VACATING the hearing on said motion set for 10/17/2016. (Michel, G.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
----oo0oo----
10
11
RANDY BLANKENCHIP and SUSAN
BLANKENCHIP,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiffs,
CIV. NO. 2:14-02309 WBS AC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; CALWESTERN RECONVEYANCE, LLC;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17
----oo0oo----
18
Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”) seeks
19
20
reconsideration of the court’s August 26, 2016 Order denying its
21
motion for summary judgment as to punitive damages based
22
exclusively on the court’s “inherent power to reconsider
23
interlocutory orders and reopen any part of a case before entry
24
of final judgment.”
25
the court failed to consider the evidence “through the prism” of
26
the clear and convincing evidentiary burden that governs punitive
27
damages.
28
(1986) (“[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge
(Citi’s Mem. at 3:16-20.)
Citi argues that
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254
1
1
must view the evidence presented through the prism of the
2
substantive evidentiary burden.”).
3
The court was well aware that a jury could award
4
punitive damages only upon finding that the plaintiffs
5
established oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing
6
evidence.
7
California Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff may recover
8
punitive damages ‘[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation
9
not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and
10
convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of
11
oppression, fraud, or malice.’” (citing Cal. Civ. Code §
12
3294(a))).)
13
assuming the court had power to reconsider its prior order, it
14
sees no reason to do so.
15
(See Aug. 26, 2016 Order at 30:14-19 (“Pursuant to
The court applied the correct standard and, even
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Citi’s motion for
16
reconsideration be, and the same hereby is, DENIED and the
17
hearing set for October 17, 2016 on that motion is VACATED.
18
Dated:
September 20, 2016
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?