Palla v. L M Sports, Inc. et al

Filing 165

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/6/2018 DENYING 151 and 153 Motions for Reconsideration. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

MANISHA PALLA,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

No.

Plaintiff,
v.
L M SPORTS, INC., dba
LAKESIDE MARINA and dba
ACTION WATERSPORTS OF TAHOE;
LT LEASING, INC.; PAUL
GARCIA; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive,

ORDER DENYING SEAN O’DEA’S AND
EVAN BOTWIN’S MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

26

IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMPLAINT OF LT LEASING,
INC.; LM SPORTS, INC. dba
LAKESIDE MARINA and dba
ACTION WATERSPORTS OF LAKE
TAHOE and dba ACTION
WATERSPORTS AT LAKE TAHOE and
dba ACTION WATERSPORTS;
TAMARA HASSETT, individually;
and ROBERT HASSETT,
individually,

27

Plaintiffs-in-Limitation,

22
23
24
25

2:16-cv-02865-JAM-EFB

28
1

1

LT LEASING, INC.; L M SPORTS,
INC. dba LAKESIDE MARINA and
dba ACTION WATERSPORTS and
dba ACTION WATERSPORTS AT
LAKE TAHOE; TAMARA HASSETT,
individually, and ROBERT
HASSETT, individually

2
3
4
5

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

6

v.

7

EVAN BOTWIN, REGAN ROBERTS,
SEAN O’DEA, EFE ӦZYURT, and
NICHOLAS CARSCADDEN,

8
9

Cross-Defendants.

10
AND RELATED THIRD-PARTY
ACTION.

11
12

Following the Court’s October 18, 2018 Order, granting

13
14

Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on their

15

express contractual indemnity and declaratory relief claims, Evan

16

Botwin and Sean O’Dea filed Motions for Reconsideration.

17

ECF No. 142; Mots., ECF Nos. 151, 153.

18

opposed these Motions.

Order,

Third Party Plaintiffs

ECF Nos. 158, 159.1

A Rule 59(e) Motion for Reconsideration “should not be

19
20

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district

21

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

22

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

23

controlling law.”

24

F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

25

Local Rule 230(j) also requires a motion for reconsideration to

26
27
28

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229
Eastern District of California

Third Party Defendant Nicholas Carscadden did not move the
Court for or join in these Motions for Reconsideration. These
Motions were determined to be suitable for decision without oral
argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
2
1

1

identify, among other things, “what new or different facts or

2

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were

3

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

4

motion.”

5

First, O’Dea and Botwin both fail to identify any legal or

6

factual issues that were not, and could not have been, raised in

7

the earlier briefings.

8

Court got it wrong.

9

Court to reverse its decision.

Their Motions herein simply argue the

This is an insufficient reason for this
Second, the Court did not commit

10

clear error in finding that an indemnity clause could validly

11

purport to cover gross negligence, and that Third-Party

12

Plaintiffs’ indemnity clause, in fact, covered gross negligence.

13

While this is arguably a unique and closely debatable legal

14

issue, the Court’s decision is legally supported.

15

and Botwin’s disagreement with the Court’s conclusion is not

16

grounds for granting this Motion.

17

there has not been an intervening change in controlling law that

18

warrants reconsideration.

19

the California Supreme Court had not ruled on the issue of

20

whether a contracting party could indemnify itself for gross

21

negligence.

22
23
24
25

Again, O’Dea

Finally, this Court finds that

At the time of this Court’s decision,

It still has not.

Botwin’s and O’Dea’s Motions for Reconsideration are,
therefore, DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 6, 2018

26
27
28
3