Palla v. L M Sports, Inc. et al

Filing 315

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 8/6/19 DENYING 292 Motion for Reconsideration. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MANISHA PALLA,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

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 AND
EVAN BOTWIN’S JOINT MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

22

IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMPLAINT OF LT LEASING,
INC.; L M 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,

23

Plaintiffs-in-Limitation,

24

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,

18
19
20
21

25
26
27

2:16-cv-02865-JAM-EFB

28
1

1

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

2

v.

3

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

4
5

Cross-Defendants.

6
AND RELATED THIRD-PARTY
ACTION.

7
8

On June 18, 2019, Sean O’Dea filed a motion for

9
10

reconsideration.

11

O’Dea requests, for the second time, that the Court reconsider

12

its ruling on his and L M Sports, et al.’s cross-motions for

13

summary judgment.

14

Hearing, ECF No. 133; Order Granting L M Sports’s Mot. for Summ.

15

J., ECF No. 142; O’Dea’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 153.

16

Botwin joins in O’Dea’s motion.

17

295.

Id.

See also Minutes for 9/19/2018 Motion

Joinder by Evan Botwin, ECF No.

L M Sports, et al. oppose the motion.

Opp’n, ECF No. 298.1

For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies O’Dea and

18
19

Mot. for Reconsideration (“Mot.”), ECF No. 292.

Botwin’s joint motion for reconsideration.

20
I.

21

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In July 2016, Manisha Palla went to Lake Tahoe with O’Dea,

22
23

Botwin, and ten other co-workers (collectively, “the Palla

24

group”).

25

(d.b.a “Lakeside Marina”).

Mot. at 2.

The group rented a boat from L M Sports
Id.

The marina required renters to

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for July 16, 2019.
2
1

1

sign a rental agreement before taking any equipment out on the

2

lake.

3

and an exculpatory clause.

4

Palla group signed this agreement: O’Dea, Botwin, Nicholas

5

Carscadden, Regan Roberts, and Efe Ӧzyurt.

6

Id. at 3-5.

The agreement included an indemnity clause
Id. at 3.

Only five members of the

Id. at 2.

While out on the lake, Palla suffered severe injuries

7

following a propeller-strike accident.

Palla sued L M Sports,

8

L T Leasing, and the boat’s driver, Paul Garcia.

9

1.

Compl., ECF No.

In turn, L M Sports and L T Leasing (“L M Sports, et al.”)

10

sued the five signatories of the rental agreement for

11

indemnification.

12

defaulted and Roberts entered a settlement agreement.

13

Entry of Default, ECF No. 51; Stipulation and Order Dismissing

14

Regan Roberts, ECF No. 86. O’Dea and Botwin filed cross-motions

15

for summary judgment.

16

for Summ. J., ECF Nos. 68, 100.

17

al.’s motion for summary judgment; it denied Botwin’s and O’Dea’s

18

cross-motions.

19

Granting L M Sports’s Mot. for Summ. J.

Third Party Compl., ECF No. 17.

Özyurt
Clerk’s

Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 52; Cross-Mots.
The Court granted L M Sports et

Minutes for 9/19/2018 Motion Hearing; Order

20
21

II.

OPINION

22

A.

Legal Standard

23

Under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

24

court may revise a prior order “at any time before the entry of

25

a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’

26

rights and liabilities.”

27

highly unusual circumstances,” a court should only reconsider a

28

prior decision when: (1) a party presents the court with newly-

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b).

3

But “absent

1

discovered evidence; (2) the court committed clear error or the

2

initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there is an

3

intervening change in controlling law.

4

F. Supp. 2d 973, 998 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

5

Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACAndS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

6

Cir. 1993)).

7

reconsideration to relitigate old matters or raise arguments

8

[they] could have asserted earlier in the litigation.”

9

v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, No. 2:16-cv-1459-JAM-KJN, 2017 WL

10

Hansen v. Schubert, 459

Parties “may not use [] motion[s] for

McMahon

3641780 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2017).

11

B.

Analysis

12

In February 2019, the Court held a bench trial on the

13

limitation-of-liability action between Palla and L M Sports, et

14

al.

15

uncovered during the trial warrants reconsideration of the

16

Court’s previous ruling on the cross-motions for summary

17

judgment.

18

testimony that (1) L M Sports required all participants to sign a

19

rental agreement before boating; and (2) Julia Hontos, a marina

20

employee, erred in failing to obtain each participant’s

21

signature.

22

trial, there was no evidence that the Marina viewed it as their

23

duty to obtain all thirteen signatures to finalize the Contract.”

24

Mot. at 7.

25

obtained this information at the summary judgment stage because,

26

“through the time of the January 4, 2019 Joint Pre-Trial

27

Statement, the factual issue of whether ‘[i]t was the Marina

28

Defendants’ policy to have all customers [] read and sign the

See ECF No. 233.

Mot. at 6.

O’Dea and Botwin contend evidence

Specifically, they point to Bob Hasset’s

Mot. at 5-6.

O’Dea and Botwin argue, “prior to

Indeed, they maintain that they could not have

4

1

rental agreement’ was disputed among the parties.”

2

Mot. at 6.

L M Sports, et al. opposes O’Dea and Botwin’s motion,

3

arguing that the summary judgment briefs and accompanying

4

exhibits referenced the marina’s rental-agreement policy multiple

5

times.

6

statement of undisputed facts, L M Sports, et al. included a

7

transcript of Hasset’s deposition by O’Dea’s counsel.

8

at 188:13-25, ECF No. 60-4.

9

Opp’n at 3-4.

The Court agrees.

In support of its

See Exh. 4

In relevant part, it reads:

Q: Did you -- is it your company policy back at the
time of the accident that everyone was in the boat, in
other words, all 13 people who were in the boat, were
to sign the rental contract?

10
11

A: Everyone that was going to be in the boat should
have signed the rental contract, correct.

12
13

Q: And do you have any information as to why that did
not occur? It looks like there are five out of 13
people actually signed it.

14
15

A: Correct. You know, my understanding is, Julia, um,
did not get everyone’s signatures. She thought she
had everyone that was in the boat was my
understanding.

16
17
18

Id.

19

included a declaration by Hontos, the employee tasked with

20

distributing and collecting rental agreements on the day of the

21

accident.

22

In that same set of documents, L M Sports, et al. also

See Exh. 16 at 2, ECF No. 60-16.

It says:

[M]y job duties in the office at lakeside Marina
included . . . ensuring that all customers involved in
a boat rental transaction executed a boat rental
contract . . . . As part of my duties, I had been
trained to specifically instruct all boat rental
customers . . . to carefully review both sides of the
rental contract and to then execute the boat rental
contract at the bottom of the first page of the boat
rental contract.

23
24
25
26
27

Id.

28

///
5

1

The information contained in Hasset’s deposition and

2

Hontos’s declaration is wholly consistent with Hasset’s testimony

3

at trial.

4

rental-agreement policy remained a factual dispute “through the

5

time of the January 4, 2019 Joint Pre-Trial Statement” does not

6

change the analysis.

7

Botwin shown this dispute was material at the summary-judgment

8

stage, they would have defeated L M Sports et al.’s motion.

9

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56.

10

O’Dea and Botwin’s contention that L M Sports’s

See Mot. at 6-7.

In fact, had O’Dea and

See

Neither party did so.

O’Dea and Botwin do not identify newly-discovered evidence.

11

Rather, they repurpose previously-available evidence in pursuit

12

of a new litigation strategy.

13

circumstances,” Rule 54 does not afford parties that opportunity.

14

Hansen, 459 F. Supp. 2d at 998.

15

circumstances here.

Absent “highly unusual

The Court does not find such

16
17
18
19
20
21

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES O’Dea and
Botwin’s joint motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 6, 2019

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6