Toll Brothers, Inc v. Lin et al

Filing 231

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 227 Motion to Amend/Correct (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TOLL BROTHERS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CHANG SU-O LIN; HONG LIEN LIN; ) ) HONG YAO LIN, ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________) ) AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS. ) ) Case No. 08-987 SC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ALTER JUDGMENT

United States District Court

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

On July 6, 2009, Plaintiff Toll Brothers, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Toll") filed a Motion to Amend Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Alter Judgment. Docket No. 227 ("Motion").

Defendants Chang Su-O Lin, Hong Lien Lin, and Hong Yao Lin (the "Lins") filed an Opposition and Plaintiff submitted a Reply. Docket Nos. 229, 230. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds no error in its conclusion that the Lins did not breach the Purchase and Sale Agreement ("PSA") by granting a temporary easement to PG&E. Having considered all the evidence and

arguments presented at trial, the Court concluded that the Lins' grant of a temporary easement to PG&E was too minor an issue to justify Toll's termination of a contract of this size and scope. As occurred on prior occasions, this minor issue could easily have

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

been resolved if Toll had lived up to its contractual obligation to cooperate with the Lins, especially since Toll had stopped planning the development of Sub-Area 3 in late 2006. Also, since

the Lins had the right to extend the close of escrow beyond June 30, 2007, the Lins did not breach the PSA by granting PG&E a temporary easement that had not been extinguished by that date. The purpose of Rule 52(b) is to allow a court to correct manifest errors of law or fact, or in limited circumstances, to present newly discovered evidence, but not to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on the merits. 2003). Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 289 F. Supp. 2d 555, 561 (D.N.J. The arguments raised in Toll's Motion seek to either

United States District Court

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

relitigate old issues, advance new theories, or secure a rehearing on the merits. The Court DENIES Toll's Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2