Robles v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/18/2020 DENYING 56 Motion for Reconsideration, re [ 44 ] Minutes on Motion for Summary Judgment. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PABLO ROBLES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

No.

2:17-cv-01580-JAM-AC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SHERIFF
SCOTT JONES, in his official
capacity, DEPUTY HARDY (Badge
No. 1434), DEPUTY DANIEL
(Badge No. 645), DEPUTY
MOVAHAN (Badge No. 452),
DEPUTY PAM (Badge No. 31),
SGT. M. LOPEZ (Badge No.
179), DEPUTY MATOON (Badge
No. 1095), OFFICER S. ROBY
(Badge No. 529), and Does 140, inclusive ,
Defendants.

21

Pablo Robles (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against the

22
23

County of Sacramento (“the County” or “Defendant”), alleging

24

Defendant unlawfully imprisoned him without charges after a DUI

25

arrest on April 3, 2016.

26

Defendant thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment.

27

for Summ. J., ECF No. 32.

28

36.

First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 18.

Plaintiff opposed the motion.

The Court held oral argument on Defendant’s motion on
1

Mot.
ECF No.

1

February 11, 2020.

2

Defendant’s motion.

3

(“Transcript”), ECF No. 49.

4

The Court ruled from the bench and denied
ECF No. 44; see also Transcript of Hearing

Defendant now moves the Court to reconsider its ruling

5

denying summary judgment.

Mot., ECF No. 56.

6

this motion.

7

below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.1

Opp’n., ECF No. 57.

Plaintiff opposes

For the reasons set forth

8
9

I.

OPINION

10

A.

Legal Standard

11

A district court will not grant a motion for

12

reconsideration unless (1) it is presented with newly discovered

13

evidence; (2) the Court committed clear error; or (3) there was

14

an intervening change in the controlling law.

15

1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

16

error exists “when the reviewing court is left with the definite

17

and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

18

Adamson Apparel Inc., 785 F.3d 1285, 1290 (9th Cir. 2015)

19

(internal citations omitted).

20

requires a party filing a motion for reconsideration to show

21

“new or different facts or circumstances [] claimed to exist

22

which did not exist or were not shown upon prior motion, or what

23

other grounds exist for the motion.”

24

230(j).

25

///

School Dist. No.
Clear

In re

Moreover, Local Rule 230(j)

E.D. Cal. Local Rule

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 May 5, 2020.
2
1

1

B.

Judicial Notice

2

Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of: (1) a

3

news article alleging Defendant held another “DUI suspect for 27

4

days without charges” and (2) a copy of the complaint that

5

person filed against Defendant.

6

No. 58.

7

Req. for Judicial Notice, ECF

A district court may take judicial notice of a fact that is

8

“not subject to reasonable dispute because it can be accurately

9

and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot

10

reasonably be questioned.”

11

well-established that “a court may take judicial notice of

12

matters of public record.”

13

668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001).

14

are matters of public record—the Court can therefore take

15

judicial notice of these documents.

16

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2).

It is

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
Both the article and the complaint

However, as Defendant points out, a Court cannot take

17

judicial notice of the truth asserted in those documents.

18

Reply, ECF No. 60, at 2 (citing Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum

19

of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010)).

20

the Court will only take judicial notice of the existence of

21

these documents, but not of the truth of any facts or

22

allegations asserted in them.

Thus,

23

C.

Analysis

24

Defendant argues the Court committed clear error: (1) by

25

finding a triable issue of fact despite holding “this case does

26

not flow from any policy of inaction based on Proposition 47,”

27

and (2) by “supplanting its own interpretation” of the

28

Sacramento County Superior Court order at issue.
3

Mot. at 4-5.

1

Defendant does not identify any new legal or factual issues that

2

were not raised in the earlier briefings.

3

simply contends the Court got it wrong.

Instead, Defendant

4

But Defendant fails to prove the Court committed clear

5

error when denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

6

First, for the same reasons articulated at the hearing, the

7

Court finds there is a triable issue of fact as to the Monell

8

claim despite this case not flowing from any policy or inaction

9

based on Proposition 47.

See Transcript at 17.

Here, there is

10

a dispute of material fact as to whether the Defendant’s

11

practice of relying on JIMS was unreasonable, “and that’s why

12

summary judgment cannot be granted.”

13

It is up to a jury to decide whether Defendant’s use of the

14

system was reasonable.

15

Co., 242 F.3d 381, *1 (9th Cir. 2000)(noting “questions of

16

reasonableness are usually questions of fact for the jury.”).

17

Transcript at 18:16-20.

Id.; see also Greene v. Allstate Ins.

Second, the Court did not “supplant its own interpretation”

18

of the Sacramento County Superior Court Order.

19

carefully read the transcript at the page it cited in support of

20

this contention, it would find that the Court prefaced that

21

statement with the following: “[t]he Plaintiff argues that

22

because the order said . . . .”

23

Accordingly, the Court attributed such interpretation to the

24

facts produced by Plaintiff.

25

interpretation on its own as Defendant erroneously suggests.

26

For this reason alone, Defendant’s second argument fails.

27
28

If Defendant had

Transcript at 20:15-17.

The Court did not concoct this

Defendant has failed to prove the Court committed clear
error when it denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
4

1

As it also did not contend any newly discovered evidence or an

2

intervening change in controlling law warranted reconsideration,

3

this motion is DENIED.

4
5
6
7
8
9

II.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 18, 2020

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5