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